The Assembly met at noon (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Assembly Business: Election of Deputy Speaker

Mr Speaker: I wish to remind Members that the election of a Deputy Speaker will be conducted in accordance with Standing Orders 4 and 5. I will begin by asking for nominations. Any Member may rise to propose that another Member be elected a Deputy Speaker. Each nomination must be seconded, and I will verify that the Member nominated is willing to accept the nomination. I shall then ask for further proposals and deal with any subsequent proposals in the same way. When it appears that there are no more proposals, I will make it clear that the time for proposals has passed. If Members wish, a brief debate may follow.
At the conclusion of the debate, or, if there is no debate, at the conclusion of the nominations, I will put the Question that the Member first proposed be a Deputy Speaker of this Assembly, a motion that will have to be carried on a cross-community basis. If the motion is not carried I will put the Question in relation to the next nominee and so on until all nominations are exhausted. Once a Deputy Speaker is elected, all other nominations fall.
Do we have any proposals?

Rt Hon David Trimble: I have great honour in proposing that Sir John Gorman, who has resigned as a Deputy Speaker, be succeeded by Mr Jim Wilson.

Mr Ivan Davis: I second the nomination of Mr Wilson.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I propose Mr Mervyn Carrick.

Mr Maurice Morrow: I second that nomination.

Mr Speaker: Mr Wilson, are you content for your name to go forward as a nominee?

Mr Jim Wilson: I accept the nomination.

Mr Speaker: Mr Carrick, are you willing for your name to go forward as a nominee?

Mr Mervyn Carrick: I accept the nomination.

Mr Speaker: Are there any further proposals?
I hear no further proposals, and the time for proposals has expired.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: In an Assembly of this kind, whose only real parallel is the European Parliament where there are a number of Deputy Speakers or Presidents, it is the usual custom that consideration be given to the opinion of the House with regard to the political divides. It is not so in Westminster, because that is a different type of assembly. It seems strange that in this Assembly, where the main division is either pro- or anti- the agreement, we do not see fit to have at least one anti-agreement Deputy Speaker, yet justice demands that in this type of assembly — [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I do not know what that man is blethering about. If he wants, I will give way to him, and he can tell us what he wants to say.
I just want to make that point. We have representation from one of the smallest parties — one of our Deputy Speakers is a member of the Women’s Coalition. That is right and proper. However, consideration should be given to the main division that exists in the House. Justice requires that that be considered. It is for that reason that we are putting forward a candidate.

Rt Hon David Trimble: I assure the Member, Mr Carrick, who also has the honour of representing Upper Bann, that there is nothing personal in what I am about to say. I deprecate the suggestion that the election of a Deputy Speaker should be anything other than a matter for the House as a whole, having regard to the candidates who have been proposed, their suitability for the position and their ability to represent and to deal with the House as a whole. It would be most unfortunate if this decision became a matter of pro- versus anti-agreement, or Unionist versus Nationalist feeling. Such political considerations should not enter into it. I have proposed Mr J Wilson because I consider that he is eminently suited for the job: his experience in the Business Committee and otherwise suits him for that, and I commend him to the House on those terms.

Mr Speaker: Having received no further requests to speak, I will put the Question in the order that the candidates were proposed earlier.
Question put,
The Assembly divided: Ayes 56; Noes 25
Ayes
Nationalist
Alex Attwood, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, John Dallat, Bairbre de Brún, Arthur Doherty, Mark Durkan, Sean Farren, John Fee, Tommy Gallagher, Carmel Hanna, Joe Hendron, John Kelly, Alban Maginness, Alex Maskey, Donovan McClelland, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Eddie McGrady, Gerry McHugh, Eugene McMenamin, Francie Molloy, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Dara O’Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, Sue Ramsey, John Tierney.
Unionist
Ian Adamson, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Esmond Birnie, Fred Cobain, Robert Coulter, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Reg Empey, Sam Foster, John Gorman, Tom Hamilton, Derek Hussey, Billy Hutchinson, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, David McClarty, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Ken Robinson, George Savage, David Trimble, Jim Wilson.
Other
Eileen Bell, Seamus Close, David Ford, Kieran McCarthy.
Noes
Unionist
Paul Berry, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Wilson Clyde, Nigel Dodds, Oliver Gibson, William Hay, David Hilditch, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Robert McCartney, William McCrea, Maurice Morrow, Ian Paisley Jnr, Ian R K Paisley, Edwin Poots, Iris Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Patrick Roche, Jim Shannon, Denis Watson, Peter Weir, Cedric Wilson, Sammy Wilson.
Total Votes 81 Total Ayes 56 ( 69.1%) Nationalist Votes 28 Nationalist Ayes 2 ( 100.0%) Unionist Votes 49 Unionist Ayes 24 ( 49.0%)
Question accordingly agreed to (cross-community vote).
Resolved:
That Mr J Wilson be a Deputy Speaker of the Assembly.

Mr Speaker: I declare that Mr J Wilson has been elected a Deputy Speaker of the House. The nomination of Mr Carrick falls.

Assembly Business: Suspension of Standing Orders

Rt Hon David Trimble: I beg to move
That Standing Orders 10(2) and 10(6) be suspended for Monday 25 February 2002.
This is a technical measure to enable the Assembly to sit for longer.

Mr Speaker: Having no requests to speak, I put the Question to the House. I remind the House that a motion to suspend Standing Orders requires cross-community consent.
Question put and agreed to
Resolved (with cross-community support):
That Standing Orders 10(2) and 10(6) be suspended for Monday 25 February 2002.

Personal Social Services (Preserved Rights) Bill: Consideration Stage

Mr Speaker: No amendments to the Bill have been tabled, and I have received no indication that any Members wish to speak. I therefore propose, by leave of the House, to group the eight clauses, followed by the schedule and the long title.
Clauses 1 to 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule agreed to.
Long title agreed to.

Mr Speaker: That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Personal Social Services (Preserved Rights) Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Budget Bill: Further Consideration Stage

Mr Speaker: No amendments to the Bill have been tabled, and I have received no indication that any Members wish to speak. I therefore propose, by leave of the House, to group the seven clauses, followed by the four schedules and the long title.
Clauses 1 to 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill
Schedules 1 to 4 agreed to.
Long title agreed to.

Mr Speaker: That concludes the Further Consideration Stage of the Budget Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Review of Public Administration

Rt Hon David Trimble: I beg to move
That this Assembly notes the proposed Terms of Reference for the Review of Public Administration.
The review of public administration is one of the major tasks facing the Executive, and will be central to the way in which we deliver, structure and organise our public services in the future. This is the opportunity of a generation to put in place a modern, accountable, effective system of public administration that can deliver a high-quality set of public services to our citizens. It is an opportunity that we must take.
Naturally, the review will attract great interest from the public and the Assembly. In that context, we wrote to the Speaker on 8 January to seek advice on how the Assembly would wish to oversee the review. We understand that the Business Committee has been considering that. We look forward to working with whatever Committee will lead on the review, and we understand that it is the Business Committee’s preference that the Committee of the Centre should perform that role, with the involvement of other Committees as appropriate.
The Executive gave a commitment in the Programme for Government to launch the review by spring 2002, and we are on course to meet that target. The Executive have initiated the debate on the review at the earliest possible point, and we are seeking the Assembly’s views about the approach to be taken to the review before work starts on it. The Executive are determined that this should be an open and transparent process from the outset, and we are keen to hear the views that will be expressed in this debate.
Members will have received a copy of the proposed terms of reference. They include a set of characteristics against which any system of public administration should be measured and a set of questions to inform the conduct of the review.
We identified the need for a wide-ranging review of the public sector in February 1999. The creation of the Assembly and a regional tier of Government lead, rightly, to questions about the overall architecture of government here.
At present Northern Ireland has three Members of the European Parliament; 18 Members of Parliament; and 108 Members of this legislative Assembly. In addition, there are 582 local councillors from 26 district councils and over 2,000 appointees to more than 100 public bodies — all for a population of just over 1·6 million. In that context, therefore, it is only natural for the public to ask whether Northern Ireland is overgoverned.
In the Programme for Government we committed ourselves to improving the efficiency and effectiveness of public services in Northern Ireland as well as the accountability for the administration and delivery of those services. The review will consider the structure, responsibilities and delivery of services by local government. It will examine the accountability and co-ordination of public bodies at arm’s length from government, and it will consider all elements of public administration against the characteristics that are finally agreed.
Although it is too early to reopen the 18 December 1998 agreement on the distribution of functions among the 11 Departments, the discharge and delivery of services under any one of those Departments can be scrutinised. The review may result in changes to the way in which services are delivered and alterations to the co-ordination and organisation of services.
The introduction of the Executive and the Assembly means that we need to consider the balance with a local government system, the structure and powers of which have remained relatively untouched for 30 years. The review will consider which services should be delivered by regional government, and which should be delivered by local government. It will also consider how many councils are needed and how services should be delivered.
We recognise that many people feel an affinity with their councils and that local councils are seen as responsive to local needs. Against that, there are questions about whether we need 26 councils and how efficient the current system is overall. That highlights the fact that there are balances to be struck between local accountability, public confidence, efficiency and effectiveness.
Of course, there is already much speculation about the outcome of the review. There are fears that councils will be abolished and that towns will lose public-sector jobs. There is, however, no presumption that centralisation, whether structurally or geographically, is better.
We are committed to examining the scope for the decentralisation of Civil Service jobs in the context of an accommodation review that is currently being led by the Department of Finance and Personnel. The objective is to create the best possible system of public administration. We have set out on that with no predetermined outcomes.
With the establishment of the Assembly, much of the democratic deficit under direct rule has gone. Ministers are accountable to the Assembly, and ultimately to constituents, for the services provided. However, there remain issues of accountability for the review to consider. There is long-standing concern at the extent to which financial powers are vested in quangos, with unelected boards supervising a wide range of public services. Those bodies, and the people who served on them, worked hard to deliver a service to the people of Northern Ireland throughout the long years of direct rule. However, we must ask if it is still appropriate to continue the administration of public services through those structures, and if not, how the accountability arrangements should be changed.
Accountability is the first of the headings in the terms of reference under the proposed characteristics of public administration. I have already mentioned efficiency, effectiveness and quality of service. I want to speak about several other important dimensions, although in the time available I will not be able to cover all of them.
Equality and human rights are important issues. We must ensure that not only are finite resources appropriately targeted at those most in need but also that the point of delivery for public services is easily accessible to those who have the greatest need of those services. The location of services must, therefore, continue to meet people’s needs and contribute to their sense of community. In addition to that, an exercise of that magnitude has to take account of section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and New TSN policies.
Co-ordination and integration of services will be an important consideration for the review team. Sometimes it can be difficult for people to know whom to turn to, and to know who is responsible for a particular issue. A prime example of that becomes apparent if one considers those people who live in the Cookstown District Council area. They are in the Southern Education and Library Board area, the Northern Health and Social Services Board area, the western area for roads and planning, and the eastern area for water. It would scarcely be surprising if people were confused about who delivers their services. We must examine whether units of administration can be provided at sub-regional level, or one-stop facilities provided locally to assist customers.
Those are some of the issues covered by the draft terms of reference. We are keen to hear from Members whether other issues should be included explicitly.
I wish to address how we envisage the review being conducted. We want everyone to feel that their views will be listened to and taken into account. We envisage that the review team will hold a range of events around Northern Ireland, which can be attended by anyone. In addition to the traditional means of communication, we have already launched a web site dedicated to the review. People will be able to communicate with the review team by using that site.
It is important that everyone can have confidence in the way in which the review will be carried out. There have been calls for it to be completely independent. However, after careful consideration, we have concluded that the Assembly and the Executive must be central to the process. This issue is too important and too complex to leave to an appointed body, with elected Members merely coming in at the end of the process. There would be a huge irony in an unelected body examining the appropriateness of other unelected bodies that had responsibility for the administration of public services.
Given that the review has the potential to shape the future governance of Northern Ireland for years to come, it is essential that there is political input at every stage of the process. For that reason we must lead the review and decide its outcome. That said, we are convinced that there must be a strong independent element throughout the review process. We are in the process of identifying and appointing a small number of high-level independent experts, who are recognised for their expertise in governance and organisational change. The independent experts will have an involvement in all aspects of the review, from quality assuring the terms of reference to participating in setting the strategic direction of the review and offering views, evidence and new ideas to the review team and to Ministers.
The experts will not be shackled. It is hoped that they will work closely with the review team. However, the independent experts will have a direct line to Ministers, if they wish to register an alternative approach or a difference of view. We also intend that the review team will be broadly based. We have initiated a selection process to recruit candidates from local government and the wider public sector as full members of the team who will apply their expertise throughout the review.
The Executive will lead the process, working closely with the independent experts, the core team of public officials, the Assembly and its Committees. That will create a balanced process that offers full accountability of members and the Assembly, and which protects the public interest in the light of the suggestion that the review of the public sector is being carried out by the public sector.
Understandably, the delay in initiating the review was criticised. The Executive rightly waited for greater political stability, for the new arrangements of the Executive and the Assembly to bed down and for relationships with local government to become clear. In addition, an earlier start might have had a negative impact on last year’s council election by discouraging people from standing again or coming forward for election because of uncertainty.
We look forward to the debate. I anticipate that Members will want to range widely, as well as addressing the proposed terms of reference. It is the start of a long process. We will welcome, and give careful consideration to, all the Assembly’s comments, and we look forward to constructive dialogue with Members throughout the review. I commend the draft terms of reference to the Assembly.

Mr Edwin Poots: First, I will comment on the handling of the review. The Committee of the Centre welcomes the publication of the draft terms of reference. The Assembly has waited for the commencement of the review for a long time. Some Members have expected the review since the former Minister of the Environment announced it at the Ulster Unionist Party conference in the autumn of 2000.
The review will be one of the most significant and far-reaching issues to be considered by the Assembly. If it is to be done properly, it will take time and considerable effort from us all. Several statutory Committees have a role: health, environment, education and agriculture, for example. However, the Assembly needs one Committee to take the lead in scrutinising the review through consultation with the other statutory Committees and by providing input on issues within their remit. That Committee will also monitor progress of the review.
Without a lead Committee, how would the Assembly scrutinise the review? To whom would the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, officials and experts answer on cross-cutting issues and matters that do not fall to a statutory Committee? The Committee of the Centre is best placed to undertake that role. I therefore welcome the Business Committee’s decision of 12 February that the Committee of the Centre should scrutinise the review process, with statutory Committees involved in the issues that are within their remit. The Committee looks forward to working with the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) on the review in its early stages and as the review progresses.
I will raise several issues on behalf of the Committee on the draft terms of reference and the accompanying paper that sets out the parameters for the review. On first reading, the terms of reference appear to be detailed and comprehensive. On further examination, however, they raise as many questions as answers.
We do not know the methodology for the review. For example, will matters such as health and education be examined separately, or will the review be split into subject areas such as accountability issues and the delivery of services? Which bodies and organisations will the review cover? How will existing reviews, such as the Hayes and Burns reviews, feed into the review of public administration?
The work could be complex and time-consuming, and we have not been told what will be the structure for tackling it. Who will appoint the review team, and when will that happen? How much consultation will there be with the relevant Committees before the team is appointed? An appointment to the Committee of the Regions in Europe was made without any consultation with the Assembly, as opposed to the approach in Scotland. We hear much about accountability, but there was none in that case. To whom will the review team report, and will there be a project board?
In addition the Assembly should be given the overall timescale of the review, together with timescales and interim targets for the completion of each element. No reference to the estimated overall cost is made in the draft terms of reference and the accompanying papers setting out the review’s parameters — perhaps that is unsurprising. Should the Assembly not be given an indication of that cost? Is there an overall target for savings?
What will be the procedures for equality proofing the review? Will it be done in stages or only once, when the review nears completion? In the letter from the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to the Committee Chairpersons we were told that two levels of independent experts and advice were being sought. The Assembly needs to know the precise functions and costs of those two groups and to whom they will be accountable as the work progresses. How will their work be evaluated?
The review must also address the scope for joined-up government, increased electronic government and one-stop shops, all of which have a role in the delivery of efficient and effective services to the public. According to the papers provided, we must examine what people’s needs will be in five or 10 years’ time. Should such a comprehensive and strategic review not assess the needs of people over the next 20 or 30 years?
As Chairperson of the Committee, I ask the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to tell us when they will return to the Assembly with revised terms of reference, and the target date for the launch of the review.
I wish to raise other matters in my capacity as a Lagan Valley representative. Why does the review not cover the functions that arise from the Belfast Agreement: the Assembly, the North/South bodies, the British- Irish Council, the Civic Forum, and other matters? The First Minister said that it was too early to review those matters. When will the review be complete? I suspect that by that time, it would be appropriate to investigate those matters.
The First Minister mentioned the numbers of public representatives and appointees to quangos. In Northern Ireland there is one quango appointee for every 800 people and one public representative for every 2000 people. Democratic representation costs each Northern Ireland constituency some £1 million. That includes the cost of MPs, MLAs, local councillors, their offices and their administrative back-up staff. How is it possible to have a review that takes powers from Departments — without examining them — and gives more power to the councils? The 11 Departments were set up on 18 December 1998. It could be argued that the issue has been "over-equalitised", however I was unable to check the existence of that word with David Ervine. In my part of the world the appropriate expression is "over-egging the pudding". Fifty per cent of the Ministers were to represent Nationalists, and 50% were to represent Unionists. I suspect that there will be an election before the review is complete.
I would be surprised if the Unionist/Nationalist mix of Ministers in the 11 Departments were fifty-fifty after that, and perhaps now is the time to consider that issue in a more focused way, rather than in a way that would ensure an equal number of Nationalists and Unionists in the Northern Ireland Executive.
Since the Belfast Agreement was signed in 1998, £80 million has been taken from the public purse in Northern Ireland to cover additional administration costs. We cannot ignore that. It was supposed to have been dealt with at an early stage, and promises were made about quangos during the run-up to the Assembly elections.
Approximately £20 million is being spent on the North/South bodies. How can we have a review of public administration without including everything that was established under the terms of the Belfast Agreement? The review is not comprehensive; it is not all- embracing; it will not wholeheartedly deal with the issues that affect the people of Northern Ireland. We cannot have a proper review of public administration unless we encompass all issues.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I welcome and support the terms of reference as they are. It is good to have a debate on them, and it will be beneficial to have the review up and running as soon as possible.
The Department for Employment and Learning has a relatively unique experience in this regard. Recently, it subsumed one of the bodies under its control, the Training and Employment Agency, which was a Next Steps agency. Other Departments may learn how to reduce the number of semi-free-standing bodies related to their administration from such experience. Admittedly, it is not yet clear how far that change has increased the effectiveness of service delivery or cost efficiency.
Invest Northern Ireland, an agency of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, also merits a mention. Its creation resulted in the grouping of several similar agencies, which reduced the total number of that Department’s agencies.
The Department for Employment and Learning is responsible for training. The Committee for Employment and Learning wonders whether there is a training issue relating to the membership of the 100-plus quangos, boards, agencies and partnerships, which, as the First Minister rightly said, have more than 2,000 persons on their oversight and management boards. The Committee is concerned that, in future, those people should receive better training and come with a guarantee that they are equipped to fulfil their remit and tasks.
Most notably, that concern relates to financial oversight responsibility. For example, the boards of governors of several further education colleges have run into severe financial difficulties in recent years. However, the Committee suspects that that is indicative of a more general problem in so-called "quangoland" in which administrative boards do not have sufficient financial management or accountancy expertise to check that public money is being adequately and properly used. The Committee suggests that consideration of the selection criteria for the boards of future administrative bodies and better training for the persons who volunteer to sit on such bodies be added to the terms of reference.
The rest of my remarks are made as an MLA rather than as Chairperson of the Committee for Employment and Learning. Mr Poots raised the number of Departments and their functions, and I am sure that others will also do so. I do not deny what Mr Poots said about the increase in departmental running costs. However, it should be put on record that, on the benefit side of the ledger, we have gained from having 11 Departments as opposed to six. They have enabled us to focus more on certain issues.
The remit of the new Department for Employment and Learning used to be subsumed in the large empire of the Department of Education, and for many reasons that was arguably not good. For example, the needs of further education colleges were ignored compared to those of schools.
The creation of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development was good because of the added emphasis that was placed on rural development. In the long run, that Department must deal with much more than simply maintaining the farming industry. We must diversify into alternative rural-based economic and other activities.
The old Department of the Environment was similar to the gigantic eastern European public administrative bodies. It was simply too big, and its remit too wide- ranging, to be economically efficient and administratively effective.
The terms of reference of the review represent a great opportunity. This is possibly the first opportunity to look at these issues in depth since the McCrory Report of about three decades ago. It gives us a chance to look, as he did in the early 1970s, at the efficiency of public administration and at the appropriate level of desirable accountability to the electorate and those who use public services.
A key point is that form should follow function. The challenge for the review and the independent experts who will be advising it will be to identify what can most fittingly be added to the functions of, for example, the district councils. Once that is done, the second step will be to decide the appropriate size of those councils, given the economies of scale that will relate to the functions that they may have in the future.
I support the motion.

Mr Tommy Gallagher: I welcome the consultation paper and the involvement of the Assembly and its Committees during the consultation period. As we progress with the review, we will need one of the Assembly Committees to manage it on our behalf. It should not necessarily be the Committee of the Centre, which already deals with the business of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. Perhaps we should consider which other Committees could steer the progress of the review.
We must also take account of independent views. Reviews of public administration have been carried out in other European countries. We should draw on that work, identify best practice elsewhere and consider reflecting that in our review.
The local government units are an important part of the review, and as a member of such a unit — and the only local government unit that has a county boundary that coincides with the unit boundary — I think that we should examine closely how the units that we arrive at identify with local communities. It has worked well in Fermanagh, and, despite local government controversies from time to time, members have often managed to overcome any difficulties and work well together for the greater good of that area. We should give careful consideration to that.
Several characteristics have been identified in the document, and I will mention some that I consider important. First, no characteristic is more important than equality. The governing factor in the delivery of public services must be equal access to them for all. The review should result in structures and mechanisms being developed that can deliver those services fairly and equitably.
Secondly, accountability is important, and it is mentioned in the document. There is a widely held view that many decisions taken on the delivery of services are taken by people who are not democratically accountable or even close to the communities that are most affected by those decisions. It is imperative, therefore, that democratically elected and accountable representatives play a full role in making decisions on the delivery of services that affect the lives of so many.
Partnership is a third important characteristic that is referred to in the document, but it does not have a heading of its own. Many non-elected individuals have specialist expertise, and they can, and do, make an important contribution to the decision-making process. They must be allowed to continue to make that input in a way that complements, and does not exclude, the role of elected representatives.
Fourthly, there is the issue of transparency. Last week, I heard that one quango, on which there are no elected representatives, was denying elected representatives access to the minutes of its meetings. That is most unsatisfactory. We must have better practices on transparency. Local government is a good example of transparency in the delivery of services. However, that does not mean that local government practices cannot be improved upon.
Finally, I wish to address efficiency. I recognise the good work that is being carried out daily by councils and health and education boards. I am aware of the uncertainties that the ongoing speculation about this review has created among public-sector workers. Such workers must be reassured that public services cannot be delivered without the existing, dedicated staff.
Much of the discussion on the review centres on councils. However, we must remember that councils are currently responsible for 3% of public expenditure, so the debate needs to take place in a wide and a balanced manner. It will enable us to make progress on a balanced examination of how services are currently delivered.
We all know of the complications within Health Service management. Ordinary people do not understand the present confusing arrangements, with the maze of structures from the Department through to the boards and trusts.
I remind Members that this matter was referred to in the Hayes review. It recommended structural changes to coincide with a new arrangement for acute hospital services. Therefore, we have to decide whether some Health Service structures need to be changed as part of the acute hospital services review, which we hope will take place this year, or be addressed as part of this wider and longer public service review. That requires more detailed discussion.
I am not saying that the structures recommended in the Hayes Report have to be implemented, rather that further consideration is necessary. The review must look at which agency, or agencies working collaboratively, can best deliver services to communities. I welcome this opportunity to bring the decision-making process closer to the people and do it through a process governed by equality in both its structure and its delivery.

Mr Alex Maskey: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I want to make several points, and one of my Colleagues will deal with the terms of reference in more detail later. I was interested to hear Mr Poots making forward projections about the likely breakdown of Nationalist and Unionist representatives and how that will affect the various Departments. Given his long- standing democratic credentials, I would have thought he would have been clamouring for majority rule as opposed to some method to deal with that, as he suggested. Nevertheless, perhaps people move on. It is important to recognise that we need to move on the basis of inclusion and make sure that equality is built into any system of governance that we devise.
I want to put on record my disappointment that it has taken over three years from the announcement of the review to bring us to the point today where we are being asked to take note of the terms of reference, although I welcome that. It gives us something firm to deal with, and I look forward to the work that has to be done. However, it is important to record our disappointment at the long delay. I am not making recriminations; rather I am trying to ensure that the reason for that delay is not carried forward into the work itself.
The First Minister mentioned some reasons for the delay, which were more to do with politics than technicalities. It may be fair to say that political judgements had to be made, but, arguably, if the Assembly and the Executive had got down to this important work three years ago, we might not have had some of the political difficulties that we did have. It is important to note that.
In their report the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister listed the 582 councillors, 26 councils, 108 MLAs, 18 MPs, and three MEPs, not to mention the 150-odd quangos with approximately 2,000 public appointees. Many of those public appointees have carried out some sterling work on behalf of the community over the years. However, many — and Mr Gallagher made a relevant point about this — have been unaccountable for years. In fact, looking at the cost of those quangos, the range of activities those people are involved in and the political who’s who of those bodies, I do not think that many have served us well.
It must be remembered that many of those agencies were set up because of many years of misrule here. Forms of government were either abolished or had their powers removed substantially, so we must bear in mind where we are coming from, given the quagmire throughout public administration. The benchmark must now be the institutions that were established under the Good Friday Agreement. Further work is necessary in order to streamline or improve the functions of government, whether here or elsewhere. However, there are specific terms for the review of the Good Friday Agreement and the institutions contained therein, and people will look forward to that.
I hope that we can continue to improve the way in which we represent the people and the way in which we deliver important services. However, it is also important that there should be further explanations from the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister for the three years it has taken to reach this point, primarily to ensure that we do not have any further delays in the future.
I welcome the manner in which we hope to deal with this major programme of work. There is no doubt that it will take a long time. It is heartening to hear the First Minister talk about the way in which the Assembly, other representatives and organisations will have a full, proper and open input. However, I hope that we will not have the type of spin that we have had from the recently appointed press officer for the Executive, in which presentation rather than substance is the order of the day. For instance, last week in ‘The Sunday Times’ there was a suggestion that one reason for the three-year delay was that many Members are also councillors and therefore resistant to change. I have not heard of any councillor resisting change for the sake of it. My party will actively pursue change, particularly in local government and in how it is delivered. This is not about whether there are 26 councils — that is a matter for debate — this is about examining the role and functions of those district councils and, more importantly, about ensuring that they will have to discharge their business fairly and equitably.
There have been some improvements in recent years through local government, perhaps because there has been a thaw in certain places with regard to broader politics. However, no one can say that local government operates fairly, and the delay in the review has put further back, probably quite considerably, changes to boundaries, which mean that the current unfair system of government will continue for the next few years. The councils and the boundaries that currently exist do not represent properly the demographic changes in our community. Local government will have to be much fairer.
I recommend that we move forward with the local government review and examine the principles contained in the institutions. Although people criticise them, the potential for abuse is less than in local government, because proportionality, equality, safeguards, checks and balances are built into the system, and that must come across into local government too.
The review of local government and the other reviews should proceed quickly and address proportionality, particularly with regard to local government. That will ensure that the people who are represented, and those who have the privilege of representing them, are treated fairly and equitably.
The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister should address the reviews that are currently under way. There have been several recent attacks on the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety about the number of reviews in that Department. Some of them are being held up by the review of public administration.
How will the reviews dovetail to be conducted within a time frame and how can the required outcome fulfil the terms of references? There is the review of local government, quangos and public administration. There is also the review of the rates system, and I fail to see how that can be conducted independently of the review of local government. There is also the review of the Civil Service, the review of government accommodation and the question of public appointments. How will all those reviews dovetail?
It is important that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister give us a wider vision. We must see those reviews dovetailing to a point where we can deliver effective and accountable governance to the people in a reasonable period of time. I look forward to Members’ responses.

Mr Seamus Close: I welcome the launch of the review of public administration in Northern Ireland. I notice the slippage that has taken place with regard to its launch; it is undoubtedly overdue. I shall be charitable and say that it is better late than never, and I will do so hand on heart as I am a reasonable person.
My main concern about the delay is that this is undoubtedly one area where time has cost money. We know the difficulties that various Departments are under due to lack of finance. I say without fear of contradiction that, due to the delay, hundreds of millions of pounds have been badly spent over the past three years. Again, I am being charitable.
To say that Northern Ireland is overgoverned is something of an understatement. We cannot rehearse the numbers often enough to get the message home. We have three MEPs, 18 MPs, 108 MLAs and either 582 or 586 councillors, and those are just figures at a governmental level for a, lest anyone forget, population of 1·6 million. I should also mention the plethora of health boards, health trusts, education and library boards, planning and roads divisions, Next Steps agencies, and the layer of other bodies that apparently provide useful services to the people of Northern Ireland. Again, I am being charitable. Comparisons will undoubtedly be made with the size of populations in other parts of the United Kingdom and the number of people elected to represent them.
I would like to be able to say that due to all these wonderful layers of bureaucracy, administration and elected representatives the people of Northern Ireland were getting a wonderful deal. However, that would not be a truthful observation. More importantly, those whom we represent and those who send us to the Assembly and other places would not agree with such a sweeping statement. They believe that their money — taxpayers’ money — is being squandered through layer upon layer of bureaucracy and administration.
Members may recall that I have referred to administration in Northern Ireland as somewhat akin to the onion. Those who have any culinary skills will recognise that as one tries to peel away the skins of the onion, it brings tears to one’s eyes. I have no doubt that as the skins of bureaucracy and administration in Northern Ireland are gradually peeled away until we get to the hub, many tears will flow in Northern Ireland.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Are those red onions?

Mr Seamus Close: They can be whatever colour of onions the Member likes. I have no doubt that it will cause a degree of pain throughout the administration and bureaucracy here. I am convinced that we must all go through that pain, because we must be to the fore in demonstrating savings and effective use of taxpayers’ money.
For example, there are 26 local authorities in Northern Ireland. Having been involved in local government for quite a number of years, I know a little about it, and on average, 60% to 70% of the rates raised in local government go on administration.
The rates raised at district council level are between about £250 million and £300 million per annum. If one applies the 60% figure to that, one can see the potential saving if, for example, the number of local authorities were reduced. There are hundreds of millions of pounds to be saved, and we must focus on that.
The most difficult question is who should carry out this review. There has been a great deal of talk in the press and media — and it has been mentioned this morning — about spin, the bad name that politicians get and the way in which they conduct their affairs. I emphasise that that is not so much in relation to this House as to other places. When politicians are seen to be examining themselves, and when they consult, the answer that comes back is invariably the answer that the politicians want to end up with, not the answer that the people demand. If we allow the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) or the Committee of the Centre to conduct this review, we will not get the result that the people who sent us here demand and deserve.
Therefore, I think that the terms of reference are slanted in the wrong direction. I appreciate that they will consult with a certain degree of independence, but we are putting the cart before the horse. This review should be carried out by an independent commission appointed by OFMDFM, and it should draw on the various levels of expertise available through elected Members, those who currently serve on quangos, et cetera. I do not have a problem with that. The focus must be on independence or we could stand accused of a hotchpotch job suitable only to politicians. That would be a disservice to the general public.
I said that I was in a charitable mood today, and a little bit of charity towards the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister would not go amiss. Another reason for not having OFMDFM carry out this review is that it is overburdened. If it is not — and I stress that I am being charitable — why is there a delay in producing business for the Assembly to be getting on with? Why is there slippage in the various areas in the Programme for Government? I understand that it has hit 20% or 30% of its targets. Obviously there is a problem, and that problem is the amount of business currently flowing through that office. It would be unfair, impracticable and somewhat stupid to add to that, if we want some sort of an out-turn in any reasonable period of time.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I am confused. On the one hand Mr Close has been arguing for less government, but now he is arguing for more legislation and, therefore, more government. Which would he prefer?

Mr Seamus Close: I am at a loss to comprehend the import of the question. I understood that the job of an elected body such as this was to legislate. I vividly recall that during the negotiations we clamoured for, and insisted that this should be, a legislative House. Our job is to legislate and bring about the necessary changes that those who send us here demand and need.
My point was that it appears that the amount of legislation generated is being clogged and blocked in OFMDFM, and to add another layer by asking it to conduct this review would be to overburden it. For that reason we must make this review more independent.
I have touched on the financial issues; I do not wish to overburden the House with them. However, another issue is worthy of consideration, and it ties in with Mr Maskey’s comments. Several reviews have begun recently. The review of the rating system is directly relevant to local government and its powers. Therefore, if, within the overall review, we shall be looking at the powers of local government and the number of local authorities, should we not be dovetailing the review of the rating system?

Mr Robert McCartney: I suggest to the hon Member that the reason for all those reviews is that they are often a method used to justify doing nothing.

Mr Seamus Close: My Colleagues and I pointed out that the initial Programme for Government was littered with reviews, which provided an opportunity to push things further down the pipe. The wheelbarrow approach to pushing things in front of you appears to have been adopted. That may be a little uncharitable. The argument that we are a new Administration that would take time to get to grips with matters was valid two and a half years ago. We have been in existence now for a considerable time. I am reminded of a television advertisement in which a young fellow walks through a field with his grandfather, discussing results. It is all summed up by results and productivity, which are questionable at the moment.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Is it not amazing that although this is a legislative Assembly, there is no legislation before the House? Years have gone by, and there will shortly be another election to the House. What legislation have the Executive presented to the House?

Mr Seamus Close: A dearth of legislation has come before the House. A large question mark hangs over the Executive and their operation. I am not part of the Executive. I do not know what goes on in the Executive. However, it strikes me that they have had opportunities to be more productive. They should let us know what is causing delays. Those who send us here expect and demand more.
I shall return to the theme of the various ongoing reviews. I mentioned the review of local government; there is also a review of office accommodation. How can a firm conclusion be reached on the amount of accommodation that will be required in future, if we do not know how many buildings will be freed up as a result of the reduction in the numbers of quangos, local authorities, Roads Service offices, et cetera? The review that has been launched today must look at the overall situation. We need clear and unambiguous statements and results, not a mishmash. At present, we are seen to be going in several directions simultaneously.
That leads me to the number of Departments. The reason we have 11 Departments, as given in the terms of reference, is that that number was agreed in the Good Friday Agreement. Those Departments were established for all sorts of good reasons. I took part in the negotiations that led to the Good Friday Agreement. I do not have a problem with the number of Departments that were established then. However, if we are going to embark on a review, that issue must be dovetailed with the overall administrative review. A reference to the need for a review of the institutions is included in the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. That review was to take place within four years. All sorts of facile arguments have been advanced about when that four years starts, or when it ends. Anyone with half a brain cell would recognise that that review should commence four years from the referendum. That is the only focus date that is clearly identified in the Good Friday Agreement. Four years from the date of the referendum is May 2002. It is February 2002. Can we not dovetail those two matters? Is that beyond the gift, the intelligence and the strength of those who are proposing the terms of reference? I do not think so.
In conclusion, ratepayers and taxpayers seek transparency and accountability in the expenditure of their money. They seek efficiency and effectiveness, and those should be the prime motives and goals of the review, which must be seen to be an independent review of the public sector.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: In such debates, Members often repeat each other’s comments. I welcome the review; it is long overdue. Members have waited for it since the Assembly began, and although we should welcome it, we must be cautious about its outcome. The review is not only about saving money; it is about making improvements. Our aims should be clear. The numbers of quangos and public representatives were mentioned. Those quangos must be removed and replaced by public representatives who were elected to carry out those functions.
There is a reluctance to review Departments, but we need to ensure that they work well and provide the necessary services. For example, it is nonsense that the Department of the Environment should be responsible for road safety while the Department for Regional Development is responsible for traffic calming. We must examine the possibility that we could operate more effectively with fewer Departments. If that is the outcome of the review, we should make the necessary improvements.
We should not regard decisions as the Holy Grail because they are based on the provisions of the Good Friday Agreement. We need to make the Government work in the best way possible. If we made a mistake, we should admit that and rectify it. We should not protect a system because we believe that it is provided for in the Good Friday Agreement. The Good Friday Agreement does not state how many Departments there should be. We must make that decision, and this is an opportune time to do so.
We must examine how to provide the best possible services. Alex Maskey mentioned verbal attacks on the Health Minister as reported in the media. She said that this is all about money; it is not. It is about how we provide health — the way in which we provide it is wrong. Many who queue for treatment in accident and emergency units do not need to be there. They could be dealt with by GPs or at health centres. We must focus on ways to free up services, rather than continue in the same way. It is untrue that the only way to deal with the problem is to throw money at it.
The situation in education boards is similar. We need managers, not administrators, in health and education. We must bring the services closer to the people, not further away. We must examine and change those factors. If we do not make changes, we will continue to throw money at the same services. Money is not the question. We must examine the services to find the answers.

Mr Robert McCartney: On the basis of the old Ulster saying that half a loaf is better than no bread, I offer a cautious welcome to the proposed review. Everyone knows, and it is generally accepted, that the people of Northern Ireland are being slowly crushed — some might say buried — under a great avalanche of bureaucracy.
As many Members have said, it was promised at an early stage that the bureaucracy, which consists of unelected people spending — according to one expert — £5·5 billion, would be removed, or at least severely pruned. Nothing of the kind has happened to date.
One has to look at the source of our problems. In addressing reform of how we are governed, we have to look at whether we are getting value for money and whether this form of administration is fundamentally democratic. The source of our problems is twofold. First, to afford some semblance of a democracy that was not entirely there during the period of direct rule, the NIO invested heavily in an army, culled from the great and the good, on which it could rely as having safe hands — not necessarily safe for the benefit of the community, but politically safe for the benefit of the Northern Ireland Office. The result was that we had an increasing multiplication of quangos and unelected bodies that were administering the place.
When the Assembly was set up, it was faced with two problems. One that I have referred to in the past, but that has not been effectively dealt with in the Chamber, is the black hole of underinvestment in the basic infrastructure of Northern Ireland at the date when we accepted devolution. Economists and financial experts have said that it may be as much as £9 billion.
I raised this point two weeks ago when Dr Farren was speaking on the Budget Estimates. However, he did not deign to respond on that matter as he did not deign to respond to the addresses of Mr Close and myself on quangos. We asked two questions: when would administration be reformed, and what could be done about the missing £9 billion of investment in infrastructure? Dr Farren’s response was to make a snide remark that I was indulging myself in one of my rare visits to the Assembly. That is absolute rubbish. I speak as frequently as anyone else, and more frequently than most, in plenary sessions.
The day after Dr Farren had refused to deal with that matter in the House, there was an announcement from another Department that this great reform of administration was starting. Three days later, in a public address to several businessmen and other financial experts outside the House, Dr Farren said that there was a deficit of £5 billion in infrastructure that would have to be made available in the next three to four years. We should be getting responses in the Chamber to the questions raised here, not having them replied to three or four days later in the press.
The first problem, from which all of these difficulties, including administration, arise, is the failure of those responsible for negotiating the Belfast Agreement to say to the United Kingdom Treasury "You have underinvested here for 30 years, and there is no way that we can make good the absence of capital investment out of the block grant. Therefore, we need an undertaking that, in addition to the block grant, you will begin to pay back some of the money that you saved and pocketed by underinvesting in Northern Ireland over many years." That is the first problem.
The second problem is, of course, connected to that form of government. For 30 years, Northern Ireland was governed through quangos, and we are now burdened with them. We have the twin problems of gross underinvestment and a black hole that cannot be filled out of an annual block grant that is barely sufficient to keep the country ticking over. The necessary money will never be saved unless it is made good by central Government.
Secondly, we are overburdened with the residue of administration arising from the quango system. That problem was apparently recognised at an early date; we have had promises of review after review, but nothing has been done about it until now. My reservation is that the review may be lengthy because, as I think the previous Member said, a review is not action. We need action, not further talk.
What is to be done? The problem of quangos must be addressed swiftly and in a practical way. Mr Close mentioned the absence of — I hesitate to use the cliché — joined-up government. I would prefer co-ordinated government. Mr Close pointed out that a review of accommodation does not go well with a review of the number of people who may be required to fill that accommodation. It simply cannot be done.
The Executive seem to be lacking a strategic grasp of what has to be done. The Departments appear just to function and consider how their own problems can be reviewed, without the review being joined up to see how it will fit into the fabric of an overall strategy for government. The strategic view is simply not there.
In the past, I have also highlighted the number of lobby groups and quangos that exist. There seem to be groups and quangos to deal with everything — including, as I once said, perhaps unhygienically, in the Assembly, nose-picking and bottom-scratching. The only evidence that these people do anything is a very expensive and glossy brochure, generally consisting of columns of expenditure, which no one reads.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Printed by W & G Baird.

Mr Robert McCartney: Printed by W & G Baird.
Where do we go from here? As Mr Close pointed out, we have a population of 1·6 million. I will not recite all the layers of the onion, though I do feel like weeping when I look at it. Are these layers to be permitted to continue, or will they be endlessly reviewed? The problem must be promptly addressed.
The people in those quangos to be reviewed can say, as was once said 2,000 years ago, "Physician, heal thyself." The quango reviewers are really the biggest quango of all. We have 108 MLAs operating 11 Departments. As a result, in the newspapers and other media yesterday and today there has been talk of the £4 million spent on constituency allowances and travelling. I have no doubt that much of that money has been properly spent. Many Members work hard in their constituencies and offer a constituency service.
However, is it really necessary to have six Members for each constituency, and, where those MLAs represent different parties, to have a multiplicity of constituency offices when the 18 constituencies are already served, or should be served, by the constituency office of the Member of Parliament? It is not a question of how individual Members spend their allowances; it is a fundamental question of whether 108 Members are required.
Similarly, do we need 11 Departments that not only possess an army of formal civil servants but a multiplying hoard of special advisers? How many special advisers do the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have, and how much are they being paid? Is it £60,000, £70,000 or £80,000 a year? On what issues do they advise that the experts in the Civil Service cannot? The problem is approaching crisis point for the United Kingdom Government, but it should also be addressed here.
During all the toing and froing that took place at the time of discussions on the number of Executive Departments that we were to have, I was asked to meet Mr David Trimble and Mr Séamus Mallon, who were then the Ministers-in-waiting. I said, "Gentlemen, I have one question to address to you, and, depending on the answer, I will not detain you. Will the number of Departments be determined purely on political considerations, or is it to be determined on the number required to give the best value for money and to provide the most economic and the most effective service?" The answer was that it was political.
As recently as two weeks ago, Dr Maurice Hayes appeared in the BBC radio programme ‘Inside Politics’. He said — and I hope that I paraphrase him correctly — that the number of Departments could no longer be justified and that we must have grown-up or mature Government, because, as has already been pointed out, various functions were cannibalised in order to provide 10 Departments for political reasons. Experienced civil servants were disorientated through being shifted about. For example, planning is within the purview of three separate Departments, as are the prevention of accidents and responsibility for the roads. The Departments are a complete mess.
Before we start to examine the quangos, we must examine the Assembly.
Several Members, including Mr Billy Hutchinson and Mr Seamus Close, said that we must address the issue and cost of overgovernment in the Assembly before we can address the various other local government bodies, et cetera.
Two weeks ago, during the course of debate on the spring Supplementary Estimates, I said — and this figure is off the cuff — that £570 million was being requested as an Estimate for next year. The briefing paper indicated that that sum was usually 45% of the estimated amount of money to run for the whole year. After doing a simple calculation, which may not be precise, it looked as though the total sum for administration for next year was £1·2 billion. I do not know what proportion of the block grant that is, but it seems to me as though it may be in excess of 10%.
When we say that the function of government is serving the people — providing the best value and most effective service, particularly in education, health, the environment, housing, and so on — we have to justify how that huge percentage of the block grant is providing the best service possible.
The electorate looks at the Assembly and sees that administration costs £1·2 billion — and that may not be the whole amount. That is a large proportion of the block grant. Such expenditure might be justified if the public were getting a "Rolls Royce" form of government with effective hospital, education and roads systems, and with money available for the Westlink, for example, in order to stop Dublin taking over entirely and sucking out all of Northern Ireland’s transport that is currently going through the Port of Belfast. There may be no money for that.
If the public were getting a "Rolls Royce" service in those aspects of government, then it could be said that "You get what you pay for — really good government costs money." However, that is not the case. The public is seeing an enormous proportion of the block grant being spent on administration — on various layers of the onion — and possibly the worst hospital waiting lists in Europe, 50% worse than those in the United Kingdom that are the subject of vast public criticism and complaint.
The public sees an education system in which many schools need upgraded facilities, and in which there is no money available for infrastructure and barely enough to cover running costs. The environment, the roads, water and various other services will soon become Third-World standard unless there is further capital investment. The public is not getting what it deserves because of the inertia of the Executive, the absence of a strategic plan and the failure to have co-ordinated work between the excessive number of Departments.

Rev William McCrea: I wish to inform the House of the Committee’s view of the draft terms of reference for the review, as set out in the First Minister’s letter to the Committee dated 12 February 2002. The Committee discussed the review at its meeting on 21 February, and I subsequently wrote to Ministers. The Committee believes, as do many Members, that the review is long overdue. I say that despite the First Minister’s having said to the House today that
"The Executive gave a commitment in the Programme for Government to launch the review by spring 2002, and we are on course to meet that target."
I remind the House that the then Minister of the Environment announced at the Ulster Unionist Party conference in autumn 2000 that there would be a review of public administration and local government. Following that announcement the Committee wrote to the Minister and received a response dated 11 October 2000:
"In the Assembly debate on the Agenda for Government on 3 July 2000 the Deputy First Minister stated that the Executive Committee ‘would set in hand over the coming months a fundamental appraisal of the structures and location of public services’ … It is the Minister’s intention to inform that process, through consultation, thereby ensuring that delay in the important area of local government is kept to a minimum … Executive Committee papers are confidential, but the Minister will consult with the Environment Committee as progress is made."
The then Deputy First Minister made his statement on 3 July 2000, and the Minister of the Environment wrote his letter on 11 October 2000. Both said that the review would happen in the coming months. The letter of October 2000 said that any delay in the important review of local government would be kept to a minimum.
The Ministers are now latching onto the promise that was made by the Executive in their Programme for Government to suggest that the target of initiating the review by spring 2002 has been met. We have sought on numerous occasions to find out where the review of local government has gone. The Minister promised that he would consult the Committee for the Environment as progress was made. I suppose that his difficulty was that no progress was being made, and, therefore, there was no need for consultation. That is why my Committee believes that the review is long overdue.
In a letter received by the Committee on 12 February 2002, the Ministers said that they wished to ensure that the review was initiated in an open and transparent way. I ask for the whole review to be conducted in such a manner. The Ministers’ letter and paper reveal little about the process, approach and structure of the review.
Failing that, my Committee suggests that an options paper addressing a full range of proposals for reform of public administration should be published, followed by detailed draft proposals. There should then be a draft report on actual recommendations based on the selected proposals, followed by a final report. However, we do not want the review to be without targets. Target dates for bringing the final report before the Assembly and acting on it must be set.
As a statutory departmental Committee with scrutiny, policy development and consultative roles in relation to the Department of the Environment, the Committee must be fully consulted at all stages leading to the final report. The Committee particularly wishes to be consulted on the formulation of options, detailed draft proposals and recommendations on the reform of local government, as that is part of the Minister of the Environment’s primary responsibilities.
My Committee submitted some specific comments to the Ministers on the detail of the proposed draft terms of reference. These included the need for a reference to review arrangements for policy formulation and bringing forward legislation and the need to reflect the key policy theme of promoting sustainable living, as set out in the Programme for Government. The Committee also suggested that the review team should ensure that environmental policy impacts are considered for all key public policies to achieve effective protection of the environment, prudent use of natural resources and high and sustainable levels of economic growth.
I urge the Ministers to come forward with proposals for the review that give clarity on the approach, structure, timetable and consultative arrangements. Written answers, for example, reporting a non-defined first stage of 12 to 18 months, are not good enough. Members have waited long enough for this important review and deserve full and proper proposals, swiftly followed by action, with regular progress reported to the House.
Page 5 of the First Minister’s statement reads:
"Given that this review has the potential to shape the future governance of Northern Ireland for years to come, it is essential that there is a political input at every stage of the process. For that reason we need to lead the Review and decide its outcome."
Who are the "we"? Later, it states:
"Throughout, the Executive will lead the process, working closely with the independent experts, the core team of public sector officials, the Assembly and its Committees."
Committees should be encouraged that they got the end of the tail — "its Committees". On behalf of my Committee I make it clear that we will not be put to the end of anything but will carry out our full statutory role of scrutiny of any issues under the remit of the Department of the Environment, including local district councils.
I ask the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister; who will appoint those persons? Taking off my Chairperson’s hat, I will take careful note of who is chosen and whether the First Minister and Deputy First Minister make these appointments. On many occasions, whether in appointment to a review or any other body, the Democratic Unionist Party had no representation whatsoever. The first criterion set down by the First Minister was accountability. Openness and transparency must be the very centre of the whole process so that everyone can see it from beginning to end. We will watch the next part of the process with great care.
In his opening remarks, the First Minister stated that it is not time to look into the review of the House and its workings. I cannot accept his reason for that. Many people believe that it is not too early to look into the distribution of functions among the 11 Departments and, consequently, the workings of the House. Strong opinion was expressed in the debate on the matter. In the light of that, what action by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will take account of the views of Assembly Members — or do they feel that they are above the opinion of the Assembly?

Mr Duncan Dalton: I welcome the review. However, as a caveat, I hope that it is more than a review. I hope that it will lead to action. It seems to me, and to many other Members, that for a long time we have seen reviews, consultations and discussions — but nothing has been done. Nothing ever changes. The people on the street do not see that anything gets better or that what we do in the House is worthwhile.
It is essential that we implement a review that will lead to real action and change, which will show the electorate that the Assembly benefits them.
Some DUP Members’ comments are interesting. Recently, Peter Robinson commented forcibly on the number of Departments and the over-administration in Government. Those comments were amusing, given that they came from the member of a party that, according to an article by Mr Alex Kane in the ‘News Letter’ at the weekend, has claimed £20 million during the lifetime of the Assembly — some anti-agreement party.
Peter Robinson, his wife and both their sons work for this place. According to Mr Kane’s article, that adds up to a Swiss bank family Robinson fortune of £181,000 a year — so much for bringing down the Belfast Agreement — that was a sideswipe.
It is essential that in Northern Ireland we look seriously — [Interruption].

Rev William McCrea: You are pathetic.

Mr Duncan Dalton: Interestingly, Mr McCrea’s son hopes to join us next year as a Mid Ulster representative. In local newspaper reports Mr McCrea seems uncertain of whether he represents Mid Ulster or South Antrim.

Rev William McCrea: Don’t be so cheap.

Mr Duncan Dalton: Members agree that Northern Ireland is over-represented. Too many arms of Government overlap and often duplicate their functions. Do we need four health boards? I have yet to be convinced of what essential functions the health boards carry out that could not be fulfilled by the Department. Why do we have them? The Minister intends to introduce another layer of administration between the health boards and the hospital trusts. It seems that rather than reduce the overall amount of government, we are increasing it.
We have 18 Members of Parliament. What is the cost of those MPs? There are 108 Assembly Members, who are supposed to deal with devolved matters. Meanwhile, the 18 MPs are trying to deal with the same matters. How much does it cost Departments to liaise with MPs on devolved issues that are the subject of discussion by elected Members in this House?
Do we need 26 district councils? Before we decide how many Government bodies we need, we must ask some hard questions about the number of existing Government bodies and what we are trying to do with them. Rather than assume that the number of local government bodies should be decided according to the number of counties, we must consider what they are trying to provide. When we have determined that, we can consider how many we need. Given the size of this House and all the other administration, it will be hard to persuade anyone that we need 26 district councils. It is interesting that several Members, who are members of district councils and claim financial reward for that, have not declared that interest today.
Mr McCartney’s points were interesting. It was pleasing that, for once, he did not give us an exposition on why the Belfast Agreement is the root of all evil in society. Instead, he focused on the key issues. He said that the structures that existed before the creation of the Assembly, the institutions and the Executive were introduced by the Government to deal with a shortfall in representation. However, we have inherited those structures and, having created new institutions and an Executive here, we do not need to retain them.
The review should consider whether the structures should be retained or what could be put in their place. We should not simply shuffle the pack. We should not be satisfied at the end of the review to draw neat charts that show to whom each body reports without any great change to the overall cost of administration.
It is essential that the review streamlines public administration and makes it more efficient. In addition, unfortunately, it will probably reduce the number of people that work in the public sector. If it is deemed that certain education and other boards are not necessary, people who work for them will not have a position in the future. That is a hard choice, but it is one that the House must make. We cannot have a review of public administration that simply results in four health board chief executives being reshuffled into senior positions on equivalent salaries in other places, which is often exactly what happens after a review of government administration. The staff will tell you themselves that they are not afraid of reorganisation because they know that they will be put into another job on the same salary.
In carrying out such a review and making changes, it is important that we deliver to the people who put us here some genuine change in the administration and in the delivery of services. We must get rid of some of the health boards and expensive bodies and spend the money on new schools, hospitals and other things that people want the public administration to provide instead of an ever- expanding number of managers, administrators and MLAs.
It is essential that this House is part of the review as well. It is not good enough to be fully prepared to throw stones all around us without taking a good look at our glasshouse first. We must demonstrate to the people that we are prepared to make hard choices about our futures and positions and the perks and privileges that come with this place. We must show that, if necessary, we are prepared to make changes to the Assembly to streamline Government service. It should not be the case that everything else is changed while the Assembly, its 108 Members and all the Departments remain in a protected bubble. The House must consider the possibility of reducing the number of Members. I see no reason for such discussions not being included in the review. I say to the First and the Deputy First Ministers that the House should be included in the review. Members who have spoken so far have given a clear impression that that should happen.
The Belfast Agreement did not dictate the number of Departments. It provided for a maximum of 10 Departments. That does not mean that there have to be 10 Departments. Of course, Parkinson’s law applies to politics as well, and inevitably we expanded to fill the available space, but we do not have to keep 10 Departments. It may be that we have the best structure and that, following other streamlining measures, we retain 10 Departments. However, let us consider whether that is the case as part of the review. We should not fall into the trap of accepting that number of Departments and addressing only the structures beneath them. We should look at the Departments as part of an all-encompassing review of administration, and it would not be right for the House to be protected from that. It may mean that some Members will have to make some tough decisions about themselves. It will be interesting to note how the 60% of Members who also serve on district councils will feel about voting their district councils out of existence.

Rev William McCrea: We are not going to vote them out of existence.

Mr Duncan Dalton: That is interesting. I hope that if, as common sense will inevitably dictate, councils such as Castlereagh Borough Council are reduced and an expanded Belfast City Council introduced, the £14,000 that the family Robinson take out of the former will be gladly given up and that it will be happy to see that administration improved.

Rev William McCrea: The Member will not be representing anybody after the election.

Mr Duncan Dalton: It is obvious that I have hit a nerve.
No date has been set for the completion of the review. The First and the Deputy First Ministers should seriously consider setting a target date. We should not allow this to be one of those reviews that drags on only to be followed by a further review and a consultation on that review, because, before we know it, we will have completed yet another Assembly term. We should ensure that the review is conducted in a relatively short time, so that we are in a position to take some action either at the end of this Assembly’s lifetime or at the beginning of the next. I sincerely hope that I see that happen, whether I witness it from the Gallery or the Chamber.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: The SDLP welcomes the opportunity to comment on the terms of reference for the review. The outcome will have a lasting impact on the efficiency, accountability and overall shape of public service delivery in Northern Ireland. The subject of delay has already been mentioned — that delay might not have been so lengthy if all those responsible for implementing the agreement had done so when they were supposed to.
For many years the SDLP has expressed concern about the shape of government in the North with reference to structures and accountability generally and the operation of quangos in particular. I trust that we will take this opportunity to address those and other long-standing concerns about the inequality of service provision and the proportion of funds spent on administration rather than directly on services. In addition, this review must be linked closely with the review of local government accommodation, which has already been referred to, and examined with a view to decentralising public-sector employment opportunities.
Several major principles always spring to mind when addressing this issue. Among those that the SDLP considers to be at the heart of this work are the best possible delivery of services, equality of provision, appropriate structures and responsiveness. In other words, the SDLP would like to see the development of high-quality public services, a means of supporting economic and social development. That commitment goes beyond the philosophical conviction that every citizen is entitled to a warm home, a good education and high-quality healthcare. It is also based on the practical recognition that resources deployed for public services play a vital role in generating economic stability and success, and, if properly managed they can be seen as an investment.
We are all concerned about funding and health, and there have been some suggestions about cutting other Departments’ budgets to support health. However, the contributions of many Departments to health education combine to produce a better outcome — for example, in health and safety on our roads. The public service overall must be designed to work as a cohesive network rather than pull in different directions. Mechanisms for co- operation should be explored so that services are integrated and coherent. As many aspects of services are delivered by different bodies, the respective roles must be set out clearly — it should not be up to a citizen to arrange multiple meetings to clarify the extent of responsibility on each side. As representatives, I am sure that many Members have often experienced that sort of situation, which often results in a paper chase. They must also be flexible and adaptable, taking account of changing public needs.
Equality of service provision is a second principle in keeping with the TSN principles. Recent decades have seen many inequalities addressed, but the underlying structures that facilitate inequality of access to public services have not been tackled. It costs more to service, for example, rural areas, and some district councils are badly stretched because of that. The cost of service provision for the whole of the North is greater than that for similar areas with a less dispersed population spread, and that must be openly addressed and dealt with. The new obligations of Government require significant attention to be paid to the equality duty under section 75, human rights developments and targeting social need commitments.
A further principle is democratic accountability. Public expenditure levels are an interesting indication, and it is remarkable that less than 5% of our public budget is spent by elected representatives on councils, while some 65% is currently spent by those appointed to unelected bodies. That comparison always startles and concerns me. Although we all recognise — as has been outlined already — that it is partly the result of the particular difficulties that the region has endured over recent decades, it has, nevertheless, raised anxiety about the level of public accountability for the delivery of public services. That is not to detract from the good work done by many people in such roles, but, like justice, public accountability must be seen.
A fourth principle, which has also been referred to by others, is value for money. Whether the resources are scarce or plentiful, there is an onus on the Government to spend public money as efficiently as possible. Again, that is of particular significance, given the North’s low population density and the relative scarcity of resources in comparison to the level of investment required to regenerate our economy and rebuild our public services. Questions arise about the level of duplication under current arrangements, inefficiencies resulting from inadequate co-operation or inappropriate structures and the cost of administration itself.
Take, for example, the simple, mundane matter of grass-cutting. In deference to the Member who has just spoken, I should declare an interest, as I am still a councillor. Those Members who have experience of working at local government level with other bodies and boards will know that grass-cutting is carried out by councils, education and library boards, health trusts and the Roads Service. Some of those bodies do it by contract, others by direct provision. Surely that is an awful waste. If this were packaged together, it could be delivered more effectively. There are quite a few other similar matters, such as building maintenance, that could be looked at in the administration review under value for money.
A further principle has to do with decisions being taken as close as possible to the people. Our party has always been strongly committed to local government, and we wholeheartedly endorse the principle of subsidiarity. Decisions should be taken as close to people as possible in a context of effectiveness and efficiency. We are the party of co-operation, and the SDLP is a long-standing advocate of European union. That is consistent with an approach based on co-operation and collectivity where appropriate, while acknowledging the wide variety of issues and services that are best dealt with at local level.
The final principle is that of cross-community concerns. The partnership principles at the heart of the Good Friday Agreement must be delivered upon at all levels in the public sector. The context that created a need for protections in this House also created a need for mechanisms to ensure confidence in decision- making at other levels. While the key principles and issues that I have identified should be pivotal to the operation of the review, the SDLP would also like to see specific attention being paid to sectoral issues in the various areas of public administration — education, health, et cetera. It might be useful to have an appendix to the terms of reference that listed the sectoral areas to be subject to examination. We could then see the issues in a sectoral fashion and see how best to cover them. That is a lengthy list, but it might be useful and important.
We congratulate OFMDFM on its decision that the Assembly and the Executive should be central to the process. Some were concerned about the meaning of "we" — it is the Assembly and the Executive, with a strong, independent element, to guide us throughout. That is an innovative approach to an elaborate process, which will include what is inevitably important: political input based on good, sound, independent advice, help, support and direction.
We welcome the launch of the review and want to see incorporated some of the points that my Colleagues and I have made.

Mr Speaker: Mr Peter Robinson was named by a Member earlier in the debate and has requested the right to respond to the comments that were made about him.

Mr Peter Robinson: I am grateful for the courtesy that you have shown me, Mr Speaker, in allowing me to respond to Mr Dalton’s remarks.
In any democratic institution there are conventions and procedures that require a Member, if he intends to make a personal attack on another Member, to inform that person beforehand, so that he or she can be present. That convention was not extended to me, so I respond now, having heard about Mr Dalton’s comments from others.
I met with advisers this morning, with a view to taking legal action against the Belfast ‘News Letter’ and Mr Kane, who wrote last Saturday’s article, because it contained many inaccuracies and clear defamation. With regard to my opposition to the Belfast Agreement, every decision that I take in my political life is based on the principles that I stand for, and there will never be any reflection on those principles from any remuneration that may result from a decision.
The article and Mr Dalton’s comments are inaccurate because I get no pecuniary benefits from the Assembly. It is well known publicly — at least to those who want to listen — that my ministerial salary goes to my party. Those who are aware of my position in East Belfast know that the one third of my Assembly salary to which I am entitled is used to provide a first-class service in my constituency. Although Members of Mr Dalton’s party have no full-time advice centre in East Belfast, the DUP has two advice centres there, thanks to the remuneration that does not go into my pocket, but which funds the work in East Belfast. The article in the Belfast ‘News Letter’, to which Mr Dalton referred, suggested that my family received around £181,000 — absolute nonsense. The Assembly does not pay my two sons, so his argument falls yet again. I get no benefit from the Assembly, so I would like to see how they can make up that figure.
It is worth pointing out that the person who is best paid in the Assembly is the Member’s mentor, the First Minister, Mr Trimble. Not only does he get, and keep, more money than any other Minister in Northern Ireland, even when he gets peace prize money, he keeps it, while John Hume hands his money over to support good causes. Therefore, it ill becomes the Member—

Mr Speaker: Order. It is in order for me to point out that the Member did refer earlier to how Members should deal with other Members. I simply draw that to his attention without further comment.

Mr Peter Robinson: If I get to a personal attack on Mr Trimble, I can assure you, Mr Speaker, that he will know it.
Reference was also made to Castlereagh Borough Council. No area in Northern Ireland has benefited more from the policies that have been pursued by my colleagues there and me. The net value to Castlereagh Borough Council can be seen in its rates bills every year. No cheap and nasty politics from Mr Dalton will dent the council’s continued faith in the policies that I have pursued in that area.
In the short time that I have used up, I have attempted to show that the remarks made in the ‘News Letter’, and repeated in the House today, are a total fabrication. They are the work of the dirty tricks department at Glengall Street, and they will be judged as such by the general public. Even at this stage, I am willing to give way if the Member wants to stand over any of the comments that he has made, but I see that he is making no move to do so. That simply shows the utter discredit of any remarks that he has made.

Mr Speaker: I call Mr Francie Molloy. Mr Molloy will have to bear with an interruption for Question Time, but there is no reason for his not continuing afterwards, if he needs the time.

Mr Francie Molloy: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I wish to make my contribution in two parts. First, I will speak as the Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel and afterwards as a private Member.
On behalf of the Committee, I welcome the opportunity to debate the review of public administration. The Committee is glad that the review is being initiated as outlined in the Programme for Government, and it is supportive of the need to consider all aspects of the public service to ensure that services are delivered in the most effective, efficient and economical way. The Committee also endorses the approach taken to ensure that the views of MLAs, Committees and other interested bodies are sought before the terms of reference are confirmed. However, we do need to move on.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)
In any review of this magnitude, the terms of reference are important to ensure that the exercise considers the wide remit and is not restricted in the options for reform that will be considered in the future. A fine balance must, therefore, be struck between being too specific or too general in the terms of reference.
On a general point, the scope of the review as it currently reads is extensive and will generate a large amount of work, which is likely to be contentious in many parts. A clear plan is needed to manage and deliver the programme of activity involved. The Committee is concerned to ensure that representatives from the Departments and the Committees are involved in all stages of the process.
The Committee believes that the review of public administration should commence, but it is also aware that the accommodation review and many other reviews are ongoing. Members are keen to see the accommodation review being moved forward, but it should not prejudice or prejudge the outcome of the review of public administration. The Department of Finance and Personnel is responsible for several Next Steps agencies, some of which are undergoing reviews and examining options for their future status. The Committee would like some consideration to be given to immediate and short-term activity on the agencies’ status, which might be connected directly to the review of public administration.
The terms of reference show that this could be costly. The Committee believes that the costs of the exercise and any implementation plans should be made known to the Assembly, and the Assembly should be able to respond to them.
I want to distance my next comments from my position as Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel. Speaking as a Member for Mid Ulster and west of the Bann, I want to restate the need for an urgent review and rebalancing of the services of local government, Government jobs, economic development and structures across the different levels of administration. There is a need to see this review in terms of the Hayes review, the Burns review, the review of Civil Service jobs and the reallocation of jobs. To achieve greater democracy and accountability, we must ensure that power is located in local government. If that is going to happen, and if we are going to see more powers —

Mr Donovan McClelland: Mr Molloy, I regret having to stop you in midstream. You will have the opportunity to speak again later.

Oral Answers

Enterprise, Trade and Investment

Mr Donovan McClelland: Question 8 has been withdrawn and will receive a written answer.

Fujitsu Funding

Mr Alex Maskey: 1. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment how much of the funding promised to Fujitsu, in letters of offer in 1994 and 1996, totalling £1·7 million and £2·9 million for its Springvale site project, was taken up by the company.
(AQO902/01)

Sir Reg Empey: As Fujitsu and Trivirex are currently negotiating a takeover of the Springvale factory, it would be prejudicial to future employment prospects on the site if I were to make public the amounts of grants paid. Those matters are commercially sensitive at this time.

Mr Alex Maskey: I appreciate the sensitivities. Given that response from the Minister, he may not be able to answer my supplementary question either. Is there any need for clawback on any moneys that have been awarded or offered to the company?

Sir Reg Empey: That is an understandable question. However, the commercial arrangements between the companies are still being negotiated, and those aspects are sensitive. I understand that Fujitsu could agree to continue to place levels of manufacturing with the Springvale facility to ensure its continued operation, so that there would be no redundancies until the new owners can progressively transfer in their own work.
There are a variety of possible combinations of events, and we are conscious of clawback issues arising in those situations. The question of what assets remain — plant, machinery, and so on — is still under determination. Due diligence is under way, and it will be a few weeks yet before we know the final outcome.
Despite my regret at the Fujitsu decision, the outcome may not be negative for the Springvale site. I regret that I am unable to give the Member a fuller response at this stage, and I hope he understands the sensitivities of ongoing negotiations.

Promotion of Northern Ireland

Mr Edwin Poots: 2. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment what steps have been taken to promote Northern Ireland as an investment location in Europe.
(AQO898/01)

Sir Reg Empey: In January 2001, Mr David Trimble, Mr Séamus Mallon and myself launched IDB’s European marketing campaign at events in Paris, Düsseldorf and Berlin. The objective was to raise the profile of Northern Ireland as an attractive location for investment. Despite the global economic downturn, IDB continues to build on contacts made then and has appointed a new sales representative in Brussels.

Mr Edwin Poots: I was aware of the launch; that is why I asked the question. What opportunities have been developed for local companies to create linkages with other similar businesses in Europe to improve efficiency, development and marketing opportunities?

Sir Reg Empey: In addition to our office in Düsseldorf, we have a representative based in Brussels who looks after the Low Countries and also has a role in France. We have an office in the British Embassy in Paris that we can use from time to time to promote events. The European market is crucial, and inward investors to Northern Ireland are frequently attracted on the basis that we are part of the European Union, with access to that huge market.
There are opportunities. However, while we have had some successes in software in the last year or so in Germany, the currency issue is a difficulty.
We do not have to give up because the current climate is negative. We must put in the groundwork to ensure that we continue to get a flow of inward investment. On a positive note, Trade International, the international trading arm of IDB, continues to lead missions and attend exhibitions in Europe. Those have been successful, well attended and supported by the business community, and we consider Europe to be one of our main areas for economic activity for the future.

Consultation Documents – Cost

Mr Seamus Close: 3. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to detail the cost of producing documents for consultation in the past three years, including preparation, printing, distribution and all ancillary costs.
(AQO882/01)

Sir Reg Empey: As the Member’s question requires a considerable co-ordination exercise across my Department and its agencies, I am not yet in a position to provide the information that he seeks. I shall, therefore, with the Member’s forbearance, provide the information by way of a written answer.

Mr Seamus Close: I accept the Minister’s reply. I am pleased that he has given the question the care and consideration that it requires. As he is taking more time and will be replying in writing, will he also give consideration to any cost benefit analysis on the expenditure of the money? Will he also make it clear that the money thus spent is used, in his view, more beneficially than, for example, the expenditure on hip replacements or coronary care?

Sir Reg Empey: I understand and have listened carefully to the views of several Members in recent weeks about the costs and time involved in consultation exercises. Some of them are subject to statutory requirement. I share the frustration of some Members. We may have got the balance wrong somewhat, but the Member will be the first to acknowledge that we come from an era in which consultation meant nothing. It was a play-acting exercise, where councillors would be asked what they thought, knowing that the legislation was already written. There was a façade of consultation under direct rule. Therefore, I suppose that there is a natural reaction to that. If the Member has been on planning committees he will know what I mean — they were a joke. However, the fact remains that people are entitled to be consulted on matters that affect them, regardless of the legalities. As citizens, they are entitled to have a view and an input. What remains to be seen is whether we have tipped the balance too much the other way.
I think that we have, but I am sure that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is looking at those matters, and I have no doubt that Members of the House will return to the issue. I apologise to the Member for being unable to give him precise figures, but I could not guarantee their accuracy if I were to give them to him today. I hope that when we have received responses from our different agencies I shall be able to provide him with accurate information.

Sperrins – Tourism Strategy

Mr Barry McElduff: 4. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to detail his strategy for developing the tourism potential of the Sperrins; and to make a statement.
(AQO864/01)

Sir Reg Empey: Sperrins Tourism Ltd is a partnership of tourism interests that represents all sectors. It plays a co-ordinating role and is committed to maximising the natural resources of the unspoilt environment, including that in the Sperrins. In 2001-02, the Northern Ireland Tourist Board provided the company with funding for marketing activity to promote tourism and production in the area.

Mr Barry McElduff: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim mo bhuíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagra. I thank the Minister for his answer. Does he agree that the Sperrins’ potential is as yet unrealised? The area is relatively undiscovered and is a superb area for fishing, walking, cycling and cultural activities. Will the Minister work with Mr McGimpsey and Dr Jim McDaid TD to look at how the cultural heritage of Glencolumbkille in Donegal has been marketed for tourism purposes, and reflect that in the Glenelly valley, especially in the western Sperrins, where the Irish language was spoken until the 1950s?

Sir Reg Empey: The Member has raised some matters, which, as he conceded, are not relevant to my Department. However, I am conscious of the Sperrins’ potential. Since 1989, the Sperrins area has received approximately £7 million from the Northern Ireland Tourist Board. That amount has come in the form of financial assistance towards capital infrastructure and support for marketing activities. As the Member rightly says, the Sperrins have a fantastic product to offer for angling, walking and cycling. If the Member is suggesting the development of cultural tourism, he will find a receptive ear in my Department. Cultural tourism is developing across Europe, and Northern Ireland with its historical and cultural events is uniquely placed to benefit from that.
I am in regular contact with Dr McDaid. We work closely together with regard to Tourism Ireland and marketing. Cultural tourism has resonance with some of the markets that we wish to attract. I will ensure that officials draw that matter to the attention of my Colleague Mr McGimpsey, the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure.

Mr Eugene McMenamin: Last year was a disaster for all aspects of tourism, and the forecast for 2002-03 is not much more hopeful. Does the Minister agree that there is a need for public funding to sustain the tourist infrastructure in the Sperrins and to publicise the region much more aggressively?

Sir Reg Empey: The truth is that one can never market any region enough. However, local authorities and the regional tourism organisation, which is funded by the Tourist Board, are very proactive. Recently, a new hotel opened in Maghera. That has been a major boost to that area, which was hard hit last year by foot-and-mouth disease. Rural-based and natural-resource- based tourism products such as walking and cycling were banned for months. It has taken a long time to recover, but I am thankful that that plague is behind us. I do not dispute the Member’s main point that much damage was done, that people lost revenue, that that has held back investment and that, as a result, some businesses have been struggling to survive. However, there is strong partnership in the area — Magherafelt District Council was deeply involved. I visited the area and spoke to the people involved, and I did not detect any tailing off of enthusiasm among those who were most directly affected. They know that they have a good product, which, if marketed successfully, will ultimately bring economic regeneration into the area.

Tourist Board – Audit Report

Mr John Dallat: 5. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment when the accounting officer of his Department will be in a position to publish the most recent audit report on the Northern Ireland Tourist Board.
(AQO885/01)

Sir Reg Empey: The Department signed off the report on 13 December 2001. Subsequently, the Northern Ireland Audit Office received comments from other parties and, in the light of further revisions to the text, correctly invited the Northern Ireland Tourist Board to reconsider the draft in January and again on 6 February. The Northern Ireland Tourist Board responded finally to the issues on 14 February 2002.

Mr John Dallat: I fully understand the importance of having accurate facts in the Northern Ireland Audit Office reports, but the Minister will understand — [Interruption].

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order.

Mr John Dallat: My constituency of East Londonderry has a high dependency on tourism. I have a particular interest in the Tourist Board and how it functions. Will the Minister confirm that whatever action is needed as a result of the Audit Office report, which is published tomorrow, will be taken immediately? Members must have confidence that taxpayers’ money is being properly controlled in the Tourist Board and used efficiently for the promotion of tourism.

Sir Reg Empey: The Member should not assume that I wait for a report before I take action. Many of the issues raised in the report — which are serious, and which I take seriously — were identified by the Tourist Board itself. Many were identified by our own internal audit procedures before the Audit Office became involved. In many cases action was taken some time ago.
However, that does not relieve us of the obligation to be continuously vigilant. To an extent, I am restricted in the response that I can make to the Member. It is appropriate for the hearing to take place first, as I may be called upon to make further statements at that stage, and I believe that those are better made to the House initially, rather than to the media.

Mr Danny Kennedy: Does the Minister view it as somewhat odd, and as a matter of grave concern, that, despite being personally cleared by the Audit Office, the chairman of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board continues to be the subject of a political witch-hunt led by leading members of the SDLP?

Sir Reg Empey: I have great sympathy for the chairman of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board. When Mr Bailie was appointed to the post by my Department some years ago, it was well known that he was a supplier of printed materials to the board. If I understand it correctly, the amount of business that he did with the board was greater prior to his appointment as chairman than subsequent to it, and I made that point to the Assembly when the issue first arose last year.
It is also important to note that the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr Dowdall, has accepted that the chairman did not influence contracts, and he also made it clear that he believes that it is important to make the point that W&G Baird Ltd was not the only company to benefit from poor procedures within the Tourist Board. When making his initial comments, Mr Dowdall indicated that he accepted the assurance of my Department that the chairman acted entirely properly in all matters in relation to Northern Ireland Tourist Board procurement decisions. It has, therefore, been a matter of regret to me that the chairman has been singled out and has had to defend himself against allegations that were not true.
Clearly there have been procedural failures, and there is no doubt of that. If any matter is drawn to my attention that requires action to be taken to ensure that taxpayers’ money is properly and adequately spent and accounted for, I will not be slow to take those actions. My Department has been told, from the top down, that I expect this matter to be resolved satisfactorily, so the Member can be assured of that. However, it is important to make the point that the individual concerned, who has been caught in the crossfire, should not be personally pilloried or have his reputation damaged. I am not in possession of any information that would lead me to the conclusion that he was culpable, and the auditor has clearly exonerated him in reports that have been drawn to my attention.

Mr Jim Shannon: The Minister has stated that the Northern Ireland Audit Office is making an announcement in relation to the Northern Ireland Tourist Board. Is the Minister aware of a television programme to be screened tonight that will specifically feature the audit report? What input has the Minister had, if any, to that programme?

Sir Reg Empey: I am aware that a programme will be screened tomorrow night. It has been in preparation for some weeks, and I was invited to appear on it. However, due to the difficulties and restrictions of protocol in the handling of Public Accounts Committee reports, I have been unable to appear on the programme. I have, however, issued a statement, and I understand that the Northern Ireland Tourist Board is doing the same. The Member will forgive me if I am not able to respond as fully as I would like, but I have to restrain myself until such times as the Assembly deals with the report. A formal hearing is to take place in May in front of the Public Accounts Committee, and I will have the opportunity, subsequent to that, to make my position clear. However, I believe the facts, as the Member states them, are correct.

Design and Manufacturing Capability

Mrs Iris Robinson: 6. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, pursuant to AQW 645/01, to clarify (a) the number of employees needed to constitute a strong design and manufacturing capability; and (b) to give a commitment to retain this workforce.
(AQO865/01)

Sir Reg Empey: It is a matter for the company to judge what it needs in design and manufacturing capability in order to compete effectively for aircraft projects. I am not in a position to give a commitment that jobs will be retained. I have, however, received assurances that Bombardier is committed to retaining a strong design and engineering capability in Belfast. IDB will ensure that that is taken into account when negotiating packages of selective financial assistance.

Mrs Iris Robinson: Will the Minister confirm that, as technology improves and business practices become more efficient, the size of the design team employed by Bombardier Shorts in Northern Ireland may decrease, and that future reduction in the numbers of those employed in the design and engineering sector of the company will not necessarily reflect a desire to wind up those interests in Northern Ireland?

Sir Reg Empey: I am conscious of Mrs Robinson’s interest in the matter. She is not alone; I have had representations from trade unions, other elected representatives and local authorities.
It is clear that technology makes a difference to design. When I visited the headquarters of Bombardier in Montreal before Christmas, I drew the senior management’s attention to my concern that adequate facilities should exist in Belfast to deal with the design and engineering capability. IDB believes, as do I, that having the capacity to tender and design the product within the group is a critical issue to obtaining future work. I know that the trade unions are very concerned. My understanding is that there are no future plans to reduce that capacity in the company, and I can assure the Member that when I meet with management, locally or internationally, the point is emphasised at every opportunity.
I can also assure the Member that in any of its negotiations with regard to future packages, IDB is taking the situation into account. IDB is continuously emphasising to the company that if it became clear to us that any withdrawal or significant reduction in capability were to take place, that would colour its judgement as to any future financial assistance it would be prepared to offer.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: In general terms, does the Minister agree that a full economic recovery will take place only if it is grounded in the knowledge-based economy? In that area, our spend is less than half that of the UK.

Mr Donovan McClelland: The supplementary must be based on the question in the Order Paper. It is unclear as to how the Member’s question is related to question 6.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: The question is related to design and manufacturing R&D spend.

Mr Donovan McClelland: You may proceed.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: What initiatives does the Minister plan to take to bring R&D spend, whether private or public, up to UK levels?

Sir Reg Empey: I am aware of the difference between our R&D spend and that of our competitors. The Member will be aware that there is a commitment in the Programme for Government on that subject. My Colleague, the Minister for Employment and Learning, her predecessor and myself have been working hard on the matter. Before Christmas we had meetings with the vice chancellors of the universities. We have had ongoing dialogue with other Government Departments where there is a significant public-sector R&D involvement.
One of our industrial development policies is to identify companies without an R&D capability and to encourage them. We are trying to encourage inward investors, as well as indigenous investors who are reinvesting, to go for an R&D capability. We are skewing our financial assistance in favour of those companies, as there is greater potential for the stability and longevity of an enterprise here if it has a significant R&D commitment.
The Member knows that only too well. I take the issue seriously, and my Department tries to configure its expenditure in that way. The Executive Members are working together at departmental level to ensure that we increase the figures to a reasonable level in compliance with the commitments made in the Programme for Government.

Development of Tourist Facilities

Mr Eddie McGrady: 7. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment what financial resources will be invested in the development of tourist facilities; and to make a statement.
(AQO868/01)

Sir Reg Empey: My Department and its agencies administer several programmes for the development of tourist facilities. Over the next three years approximately £18 million should be available under the tourism development scheme, the EU Peace II programme and the International Fund for Ireland (IFI).

Mr Eddie McGrady: The Minister referred to £18 million of funding coming from Europe to the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, which should be added to the £57 million of European funding that has been allocated to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. Can the Minister tell us what criteria will be used to allocate those funds to individual projects? More importantly, will he consider seriously the necessity to revitalise and regenerate many of our tourist centre attractions? I am plugging some of the most sensitive and beautiful areas around Newcastle, Kilkeel and Warrenpoint, which, together with many other areas in the Six Counties, have not had the revitalisation of tourist infrastructure that they need.

Sir Reg Empey: I thought that I might receive a question from that direction, so I asked my officials to prepare a note on that topic, and an interesting statistic emerged. A total of just over £109·5 million of financial assistance has been offered to tourist accommodation and amenity projects throughout Northern Ireland in the past 10 years. The South Down constituency has received the second largest proportion of financial assistance, which represents 13·8% of the total grant offered in that 10-year period. The Member must concede that his area is not exactly deprived in that regard. However, I take the wider point seriously. Tourism is receiving some assistance from the European Union, the IFI and our own recourses. To that cocktail of funding we can add the contributions from the local authorities and the tourist industry.
The tourist board and the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee are carrying out reviews, as the Member will be aware, because they recognise that, from time to time, they must decide where the emphasis lies. The Member also said that regeneration is required. One scheme is under way at present to examine guest house provision and accommodation standards. A debate is raging in the Newcastle area about having a major amenity as a gateway to the Mournes. These are all significant measures. However, the Member must agree that the biggest boost we can give to tourism in Northern Ireland is the removal of the sort of scenes that appear constantly on television screens — nationally and internationally — which drive people away.
I have told the House may times that the tourism industry is operating at one third of its potential. That is a crying shame. There is huge potential for jobs and, given that agriculture will be under pressure for the next few years, the rural community and natural-resource-based tourism will be able to take advantage of a wonderful opportunity. That will happen only if the opportunity can be provided.

Jobs in Strabane and Omagh District Council Areas

Mr Derek Hussey: 9. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to detail the total jobs lost and total jobs created in the Strabane and Omagh District Council areas over the last three years.
(AQO879/01)

Sir Reg Empey: It is not currently possible to provide information on redundancies for district council areas. However, over the past three years, 193 redundancies were confirmed to the Department in the Strabane job- centre area and 217 in the Omagh job-centre area. Information on the number of jobs created is not available. However, figures from the NI census of employment can be used to estimate the net change in employee jobs between censuses. Latest figures show that between 1997 and 1999 the number of employee jobs in the Strabane and Omagh district council areas increased by 90 and 786 respectively.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Mr Hussey may ask a supplementary question, but I suspect that he will receive a written answer.

Mr Derek Hussey: I understand the constraints of time. The Programme for Government shows that growth is constrained by the structure of the economy. It highlights declining sectors such as textiles. The Minister realises the difficulties that exist in west Tyrone, which comprises the two district council areas of Strabane and Omagh. Given those concerns, can the Minister assure the House that the employment figures for west Tyrone will at least reach the Northern Ireland average?

Mr Donovan McClelland: The Minister will supply a written response to the question. Time is up for questions to the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. There will now be questions to the Minister for Employment and Learning. I wish to advise Members that question 4, in the name of Mrs Nelis, has been withdrawn and will receive a written answer.

Employment and Learning

FE Colleges – Remission of Fees

Mr Tommy Gallagher: 1. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning whether further education colleges have had their fees remitted as a result of the support package initiated by her Department last year.
(AQO893/01)

Ms Carmel Hanna: Tuition fees for full-time students aged 19 and over who are attending vocational courses in colleges of further education were abolished with effect from 1 August 2001. Guidance to colleges about student eligibility and details about the funding available were issued in a departmental circular on 26 July 2001.

Mr Tommy Gallagher: Will the Minister inform the House what the eligibility requirements for the remission of fees are?

Ms Carmel Hanna: Colleges should remit fees for full-time students who are aged 19 or over on 1 July before that academic year and who are undertaking a vocational programme of study at national vocational qualification (NVQ) level three or below and who meet the European residency criteria. Purely academic programmes of study at that level, such as GCSEs and A levels and programmes at level four and above, are excluded.

Dr Esmond Birnie: Given that several further education colleges have severe financial problems and deficits, what is the Department’s view of colleges that may raise fees for various short courses to raise funds to redress deficits?

Ms Carmel Hanna: The Department pays colleges a maximum of £840 per annum for each full-time student enrolled after 1 August 2001 who meets the eligibility criteria. That sum is based on the average amount received by each college before the introduction of the fees remission policy.

Capital Investment Programmes

Mr John Fee: 2. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning what capital investment programmes are planned by her Department.
(AQO888/01)

Ms Carmel Hanna: In 2002-03, capital funding of £21 million will be invested in the further education sector. That funding will be targeted primarily at major works, health and safety maintenance, access for disabled students and capital equipment — including funding for information and communications technology equipment and centres of excellence.
Regarding higher education, the Department’s planned capital budget for 2002-03 is £9·4 million. That will be used for various projects, including enhancing infrastructure and facilitating compliance with forthcoming disability legislation. In addition, 2002-03 will see the first tranche of grants under the Science Research Investment Fund programme. That aims specifically at strengthening science research, and grants of £7 million will be available in 2002-04.

Mr John Fee: It is very welcome to have the assurance that some £37 million will be spent on the capital investment programme. Can the Minister give more precise details about which schemes will be introduced for funding in the further education sector?

Ms Carmel Hanna: I am examining the capital programme for the coming year. The Department for Employment and Learning is making progress with several private finance initiative schemes to provide brand new build accommodation at Omagh College of Further Education and East Tyrone College of Further and Higher Education and a new campus for the Belfast Institute of Further and Higher Education. There is also a partnership between the Belfast Institute and the University of Ulster to provide brand new accommodation at Springvale in west Belfast.

Mr Tom Hamilton: Does the Minister agree that one of the most urgent capital requirements relates to the Henry Garrett Building at Stranmillis University College? Part of the building was recently closed on health and safety grounds. The teachers of the future surely deserve better training facilities.

Ms Carmel Hanna: I agree that there are financial issues with the Henry Garrett Building, which I visited some weeks ago. The Member is probably aware that they are being addressed, and I can give him more details in writing.

Student Poverty

Mr Eamonn ONeill: 3. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning what financial support is in place to address student poverty.
(AQO890/01)

Ms Carmel Hanna: Grants are being reintroduced in higher education from September 2002, targeted specifically at students from low-income backgrounds. Households with incomes of less than £15,000 are eligible for grants of up to £1,500. Childcare grants have been in place from 1 September 2001. The level of parental income at which a contribution towards tuition fess becomes due has also been increased. Student loans, which, as the Member knows, are highly subsidised from public funds, are also available.
In further education, fees for full-time students over 19 years of age on vocational courses have been abolished. A system of discretionary grants was introduced in September 2001. Students who experience particular financial difficulties during their studies can also avail of access and hardship funds in further and higher education.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: Can the Minister outline any further ideas or steps that she may have in mind to address the problem of fees, given its importance? How much would it cost to abolish fees?

Ms Carmel Hanna: My officials have calculated that the abolition of fees across higher and further education, both full-time and part-time, could cost up to an additional £35 million per year. The Department must ensure that the money it has reaches the areas where it is needed most. This year, £116 million has been spent on student support. Next year, that figure will rise to £133 million. In addition to that, there is £65 million from Seán Farren’s support scheme.
A considerable amount of money is being spent. The threshold at which student fees are paid has been raised. Currently, over half the students in higher education do not pay fees, one quarter pay 50% of fees and only the remaining quarter pay the full amount. The income threshold for the payment of fees has been raised to £20,000 per household. The threshold at which student grants are available has also been raised.

Mr Roy Beggs: Do the high levels of student debt deter potential students, especially those from low-income backgrounds, from entering higher and further education? The number of Unionist students from low-income backgrounds entering further education is particularly low. Is that related to a lack of information about grants that may be available?

Ms Carmel Hanna: Recent evidence from Market and Opinion Research International (MORI) suggests that we are better at attracting and retaining students from lower- income backgrounds than is the case across the water. I do not have the figures to hand on the community background of students, but if they are available, I will supply them to the Member.

Decentralisation of Jobs

Mr John Dallat: 5. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning to detail (a) the number of personnel currently employed in her Department; and (b) how many of these jobs may be decentralised between January and December 2002.
(AQO895/01)

Ms Carmel Hanna: The Department for Employment and Learning currently employs 1,512 staff, of whom 602 are employed outside Belfast. There are no plans for further decentralisation. However, the Executive have commissioned Deloitte & Touche to carry out a review of Northern Ireland Civil Service accommodation.

Mr John Dallat: I welcome the moves afoot to examine the problem at least. Why must so many jobs be located in Belfast, and why is it not possible to proceed with decentralisation?

Ms Carmel Hanna: Decentralisation is under review. There are obvious advantages in locating headquarters close to Stormont and in having ready access to senior civil servants. However, it is necessary to examine more closely the possibility of locating our services beyond Belfast. The extra costs and time involved when staff travel from other areas, including car parking and other factors, must be taken on board. My Department has JobCentres throughout Northern Ireland, but there may be the potential to build on that.

Evaluation of New Deal

Mr Alban Maginness: 6. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning what the main findings of the evaluation of the New Deal published in January 2002 are.
(AQO894/01)

Ms Carmel Hanna: The evaluation was generally positive. It found that New Deal worked well with motivated participants and with those who had positive experiences of the labour market. Many instances of good practice were found. The role of the New Deal personal advisor emerged as a significant factor in the successful delivery of the programme. The programme was less effective in dealing with those who face multiple barriers to employment, and my Department is working to rectify that.

Mr Alban Maginness: I am gratified that the evaluation found that New Deal worked reasonably well. Where is there room for improvement in the delivery of the programme and what measures could the Minister’s Department take to make those improvements?

Ms Carmel Hanna: Although the evaluation was generally positive, it showed that there is room for improvement, particularly when dealing with participants with multiple barriers to employment. My Department is reviewing how best to tailor that provision to meet the needs of those groups. In addition, the evaluation highlighted the need for refresher training for personal advisors, and a comprehensive programme for their training commenced recently.

FE Boards of Governors

Mr Arthur Doherty: 7. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning how many applications have been received for further education boards of governors positions.
(AQO892/01)

Ms Carmel Hanna: Three hundred and seventeen applications were received.

Mr Arthur Doherty: I thank the Minister for that concise answer. Why was it necessary to advertise twice for applications for positions on the boards?

Ms Carmel Hanna: Advertisements were placed in local papers twice to gain the number of applications that were needed for particular colleges. The Further Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 specifies that governors must be drawn from certain backgrounds. There were insufficient responses to the first advertisement from those with the appropriate backgrounds, particularly from the business sector.

Mr Alan McFarland: Given that governors are ultimately responsible for overseeing the finances of colleges, how adequate are the financial management skills and training of governors? What is the Minister’s Department doing to address any shortcomings?

Ms Carmel Hanna: In the last few years, further education colleges took over their management from the education and library boards. Some are managing better than others. That is why the criteria for governors are so important. A board of governors must comprise members with specific backgrounds, particularly from business and other professions, members from the further education college itself and a representative of the student body. The board requires members who have that expertise.

Mr Boyd Douglas: What steps has the Department taken to ensure that boards of governors are representative of the religious balance of catchment areas?

Ms Carmel Hanna: I am sure that the Department deals with that, but I do not have the answer here. I will respond to the Member in writing.

Springvale Outreach Centre

Mr Alex Maskey: 8. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning what strategy the Springvale Outreach Centre will employ to ensure wider access by the community in west Belfast to courses at the proposed Springvale University.
(AQO901/01)

Ms Carmel Hanna: I believe in the principles of regeneration, reconciliation and education for local people, which are the principles of the Springvale Outreach Centre. Education for local people is widening access to education. It is for local partners to ensure that the strategy fits with these principles, and I will meet with them to offer all the help and support that I can.

Mr Alex Maskey: I thank the Minister for her reply. I raised the issue with her predecessor, Dr Farren. I know that the Minister cannot commit herself to a date for a meeting today. However, given the need for Springvale to be a centre of excellence for education, the importance of regeneration for that area and the huge amount of public money that goes to it, can the Minister assure the House that, when she meets the area’s social partners, she will seek to provide some of them with resources?
As the local partnerships span west Belfast, the Shankill and north Belfast, it has been difficult to ensure that they are resourced and will benefit the community in the final analysis — an issue that we have raised with the Department.

Ms Carmel Hanna: I am aware of some of those problems, and I will do my best to ensure that all the partners are kept informed and on board.

Mr Ken Robinson: Recent research commissioned by the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister illustrated the extent of non-progression to further and higher education, particularly among Protestant working-class males. What will be done in the light of that to ensure that Springvale will actively seek the involvement of that marginalised and volatile sector of our society?

Ms Carmel Hanna: If Springvale is to be a centre of excellence — and it must be no less than that — it is essential that it is outward looking and involves the wider community, including the Shankill.

Training in the Construction Industry

Mr Edwin Poots: 9. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning what measures have been put in place to encourage more young people to take up training in the construction industry.
(AQO899/01)

Ms Carmel Hanna: Responsibility for encouraging young people to take up training in the construction industry rests with the Construction Industry Training Board (Northern Ireland) (CITB), which is the only remaining statutory training board in Northern Ireland. Its remit is defined under the relevant legislation as the encouragement of adequate training of persons employed or intending to be employed in the industry. The Department facilitates the industry through the work of the careers service and provides funding for trainees and apprentices in the sector through Jobskills, Focus for Work and New Deal.

Mr Edwin Poots: I thank the Minister for her response. Does the Department recognise that the number of young people who take up such trades has decreased? Does it recognise that those trades are essential to the future well-being of Northern Ireland? Does the Department intend to develop a programme that will encourage more young people to take up traditional building trades?

Ms Carmel Hanna: Employment levels in the construction industry have grown constantly in the last few years, and the effect of growth in the industry in the South has caused a tight labour market. The Member is right — it is more difficult now to encourage young people to take up these trades. In the last full year, staff from the CITB made a total of 478 school visits. Since 1995, the board has invested £50,000 per annum of its levy in careers promotion. Activities have included job sampling across a wide range of construction skills, careers publications that explain the opportunities on offer and attendance at events such as school open days. I agree that we must do all that we can to encourage young people to learn those skills.

FE Students – Financial Support

Mr Joe Byrne: 10. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning what financial support exists for students at further education colleges.
(AQO886/01)

Ms Carmel Hanna: The main support that is available includes the remission of tuition fees for full-time students, aged 19 years and above, on vocational further education courses; discretionary access bursaries for full-time further and higher education students, aged 19 years and above; and support funds for part-time and full-time students, aged 19 and above, whose access to or participation in further education is inhibited by financial considerations. In addition, higher education students have access to student loans.

Mr Joe Byrne: I welcome the change in provision for that category of students in the past year or two. What help is available for further education students who suffer financial hardship? Are there any plans to increase such help?

Ms Carmel Hanna: Support funds are earmarked funds for further education colleges to provide financial help to students whose access to or participation in further education is inhibited by financial considerations or to those who, for whatever reason, including physical or other disability, face financial difficulties in meeting their living costs. The available funding has increased significantly in recent years. For example, new money was made available following the abolition of full-time tuition fees to compensate colleges for their subsequent loss of income. The support fund budgets, which assist students who face financial hardship, have increased significantly from £665,000 in 1998-99 to £1·6 million in 2001-02. The residual threshold at which a tuition contribution becomes due for higher education has been raised to £20,000.

Walsh Visas

Mr P J Bradley: 11. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning if Walsh visas remain available to those seeking work-related training in the United States of America.
(AQO876/01)

Ms Carmel Hanna: The US legislation will provide visas under the Walsh visa programme until September 2002. My Department continues to promote the programme and to recruit participants. Some 30 young people are currently engaged in pre-departure training. They are due to travel to the United States on 3 March 2002.

Mr P J Bradley: A short time remains for those who wish to take up the programme. Is the Minister satisfied with the progress of the Walsh programme so far?

Ms Carmel Hanna: Following the start-up phase, recruitment, selection, pre-departure training and US hub management have been strengthened significantly. Those measures have ensured that participants are better prepared and better supported to meet the challenge of living and working in the United States. They will also be better prepared for their return to Northern Ireland.

Learndirect

Mr Derek Hussey: 12. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning to detail when the learndirect network will be extended to all district council areas.
(AQO877/01)

Ms Carmel Hanna: The University for Industry Ltd has approved the proposals for a learndirect centre in all district council areas, with the exception for now of that of Larne Borough Council. A total of 31 centres, including one in Omagh, are operating already. A further three will be opened in the near future.

Mr Derek Hussey: I am reflecting on the shock expressed by those to my left.
I appreciate the Minister’s answer. However, she should note the concern at the length of time that it has taken the learndirect network to become fully operational. That is of particular concern in an area such as Strabane. A learndirect centre would greatly assist the rejuvenation of the area. I declare an interest as a member of Strabane District Council.
Is the Minister aware of any reasons for the North West Institute of Higher and Further Education’s not being awarded a learndirect contract in Strabane?

Mr Donovan McClelland: The question deviates slightly from the topic of discussion. Does the Minister wish to answer?

Ms Carmel Hanna: I will do my best. The essential feature of learndirect is that its courses and support from tutors are available on the Internet, and the University for Industry encourages its centres to co-operate with community-based partners to provide outreach access points — for example, in workplaces and local community facilities. If that has not yet been done, Omagh could spread that out. However, I honestly do not know why learndirect has not reached Strabane. I will get back to the Member on that.

Consultation Documents - Cost

Mr Seamus Close: 13. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning to detail the cost of producing documents for consultation over the last three years, including preparation, printing, distribution and all ancillary costs.
(AQO889/01)

Ms Carmel Hanna: Every effort is made to minimise printing and distribution costs through the production of consultation documents in-house and, where possible, through the use of e-mail. It is a matter of finding a balance between transparency and openness and not getting caught up in bureaucracy. The Member will be aware that my officials are working to provide details of costs where available, and I will write to him on that.

Mr Seamus Close: I thank the Minister for the promise of a comprehensive reply, and she is correct, I was already aware of that fact. Can the Minister also take into consideration the cost benefit analysis that was carried out on that expenditure? Does she further agree that the money could perhaps have been better spent on hip replacements, coronary care, day-care surgeries and so on?

Ms Carmel Hanna: As I have already said, it is a matter of finding a balance between transparency and openness and not getting caught up in bureaucracy.

Task Force Targets

Mr Eugene McMenamin: 15. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning to detail the main targets of the task force on employability and the long-term unemployed.
(AQO896/01)

Ms Carmel Hanna: The task force targets are set out in its terms of reference. Those targets are: to research the factors affecting people out of work; to engage with others outside the Government; to make recommendations; and to prepare an action plan that integrates action across Departments and agencies. The first two stages have been completed, and we are now engaged in the final two stages — setting short-, medium- and long-term targets.

Mr Eugene McMenamin: How will the Minister measure the success or otherwise of the task force?

Ms Carmel Hanna: We must set targets to create employment in deprived areas, to improve training and reskilling, to remove the obstacles to work and to give more support when people first enter employment.

Tourism Training Levels

Mr Eddie McGrady: 16. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning to give her assessment of training levels within the tourism industry; and to make a statement.
(AQO869/01)

Ms Carmel Hanna: The Executive have recognised the potential contribution of tourism to the Northern Ireland economy. My Department has been working with the industry and, through the Tourism Training Trust, has helped to establish a training strategy for the sector. In addition to young people training for the industry through modern apprenticeships, Jobskills and further and higher education provision, several training initiatives have been put in place. The Northern Ireland skills task force has recently commissioned research to assess the demand and supply of skills for tourism.

Mr Eddie McGrady: Are there specific trainee programmes dealing with the broader spectrum of tourism, particularly tourist activity and the hospitality aspect of tourism? At this stage, does the Minister consider it necessary to undertake a review of training within that industrial sector? Furthermore, having completed that review, can she ensure that funding is made available to modernise the training courses and techniques?

Ms Carmel Hanna: The Northern Ireland Skills Task Force has commissioned research on skills and training specifically within the tourism and hospitality sector in Northern Ireland, and I expect to receive the report very soon. For that research to be meaningful, it must involve all aspects of tourism and the hospitality industry. Adequate funding is also essential if the review is to be meaningful.

"One" Service

Mr Barry McElduff: 17. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning when the "One" service will be operational in Strabane and Omagh; and to make a statement.
(AQO870/01)

Ms Carmel Hanna: The "One" service, which is a single work-focused gateway to a range of welfare benefits, is currently being piloted in the Dungannon area. The roll-out of the service to other parts of Northern Ireland is subject to a full evaluation of the pilot, which has been extended to March 2003.

Mr Barry McElduff: Gabhaim mo bhuíochas leis an Aire as a freagra. Has there been any preliminary feedback, or have lessons been learnt, from the Dungannon experience?

Mr Donovan McClelland: Unfortunately, we are out of time. Perhaps the Minister would write to Mr McElduff with a response.

Social Development

Rural Cottages in Strabane and Omagh District Council Areas

Mr Derek Hussey: 1. asked the Minister for Social Development to detail the total number of rural cottages in Strabane and Omagh district council areas that have yet to be included in the programme for refurbishment or replacement.
(AQO878/01)

Mr Nigel Dodds: There are 23 rural cottages in the Strabane District Council area and three cottages in the Omagh District Council area that have yet to be included in the programme for refurbishment or replacement.

Mr Derek Hussey: It is refreshing to receive a straight answer, an answer which clearly demonstrates that something must be done about the balance between the two parts of west Tyrone.
The Minister will be aware of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive consultation document, ‘Places for People — A Rural Housing Policy Review’, the overall objective of which relates to the regional development strategy. A recent audit in the places for people review has identified the need for a clearer focus on rural new build. Will the Minister assure the Assembly that he will use his influence to ensure that planners, even though they may be located in another Department, are encouraged to be supportive of rural new build?

Mr Nigel Dodds: First, I thank the Member for his reference to straight answers. It helps if a precise question is put to which one can give a definite answer, and in turn I compliment him on his question.
Planning issues lie outside my remit. Although the Member makes a relevant and important point, it is not something over which I have any control. With regard to my Department addressing issues such as unfitness in rural areas, the Member will know that there are provisions in the housing Bill, which is due to come before the Assembly, to address some of those issues. I hope that they will go some way to alleviate the issue of unfitness not only in rural cottages but also in rural areas generally.

Mr Eugene McMenamin: Who will carry out the refurbishment of rural cottages? Why have housing associations not undertaken this work in the past? How can the Northern Ireland Housing Executive continue to plan, design and complete such work when its new build capacity has been removed? I hope the Minister can be precise.

Mr Nigel Dodds: I certainly will be precise, because the answer is clear, and anyone who knows anything about housing would know the answer. The Housing Executive is involved in the design and planning of all new build programmes, and housing associations may carry out this work. The Housing Executive plays a central role in identifying needs throughout Northern Ireland, and in consultation with communities draws up new build schemes. There is nothing different about rural cottages. To be precise, the replacement cottages are being provided by housing associations. The schemes have been included in the social housing new build programme, and the timing will depend on how speedily the technical problems can be resolved.
Of the 50 cottages in the Omagh area, 18 have been replaced, nine have been improved, 20 have either been sold or tenants have refused the work and three remain to be assessed. In the Strabane area there are 212 cottages, of which 46 have been replaced, 12 have been improved, 22 are in the process of being replaced by housing associations, 20 are in the housing association new build programme, 89 have either been sold or tenants have refused the work and 23 remain to be assessed.

Mr Oliver Gibson: There is unfitness in the rural housing stock, particularly in West Tyrone, which is a real problem. Can the Minister indicate how he intends to tackle that problem, and can he comment on whether it can be eradicated?

Mr Nigel Dodds: As I said in answer to the earlier question, the housing Bill will include provisions that will go some way to addressing some of those issues. It will give the Housing Executive the power to use more discretion in relation to the private sector grants scheme, and that provision is aimed specifically at allowing it to target resources to areas such as the western part of the Province, where unfitness levels are highest, and to other rural parts of the Province. Members have frequently drawn my attention to that issue, and we will be addressing it in the housing Bill.
I have already mentioned that a programme of work is under way to tackle unfit cottages in rural areas and to replace them. We are trying to address rural unfitness, and the provisions in the housing Bill will be critical in that regard.

Housing Executive Houses – Lisburn District

Mr Edwin Poots: 2. asked the Minister for Social Development to detail the number of Housing Executive houses that were built in the Lisburn district in the years 1998-99; 1999-2000; and 2000-01.
(AQO900/01)

Mr Nigel Dodds: The Housing Executive built 19 houses in the Lisburn district in 1998-99, two houses in 1999-2000 and two houses in 2000-01. As the Member will know, housing associations now provide all new build social housing in Northern Ireland, and, in the above periods, they provided 86 houses, 229 houses and 17 houses respectively.

Mr Edwin Poots: Does the Minister recognise that the number of house sales is far exceeding the number of new houses that are becoming available at a public level? Consequently, will the Department for Social Development lobby the Department of the Environment in relation to the Belfast metropolitan area plan so that a portion of that land can be designated for public sector housing, given that the public sector obviously cannot compete with private developers in acquiring land, which is quickly running out.

Mr Nigel Dodds: I thank the Member for his supplementary question. It is a matter for the Planning Service, as the Member knows, to identify areas that are suitable for housing. The Housing Executive engages in discussions with the planning authorities and others about the appropriate housing mix for areas, and that will continue.
I note the Member’s point about the Lisburn area. As far as my Department and the Housing Executive are concerned, we are trying to build sustainable communities, and that entails a mixed housing provision, involving private ownership, social housing and co-ownership. I am convinced that that approach will, in the long run, provide for stable communities. It is for the planners to identify suitable areas, but my Department and the Housing Executive will discuss the appropriate housing mix for Lisburn, and other areas, with them.

Housing Shortage – Portstewart and Portrush

Mr John Dallat: 3. asked the Minister for Social Development to outline his plans for solving the current housing shortage in Portstewart and Portrush.
(AQO883/01)

Mr Nigel Dodds: In Portstewart 40 households are considered to be in housing stress. Acquisition of suitable sites for new social housing continues to be a problem. However, as an interim measure, housing associations have been asked to acquire existing properties to help reduce the waiting list. Four dwellings have already been purchased, and a further four are in the pipeline. In addition, housing associations are actively seeking sites for new housing. If those can be identified and acquired, there is provision in the housing programme to start 10 new dwellings in 2002-03 and a further 10 in 2003-04. My Department has earmarked the funding to undertake this much-needed work.
Thirty-nine households in Portrush are considered to be in housing stress. In 2002-03, Ark Housing Association plans to provide 15 properties for people with mental health problems. In addition, housing associations have been asked to identify sites for 10 dwellings for elderly people in 2003-04.

Mr John Dallat: The Minister will be aware that there are enormous pressures on land in desirable areas such as seaside towns. Does the Minister agree that in these circumstances social housing is a particular problem given the enormous financial power of developers to acquire all available developing land for holiday homes? Does he agree that the time has come for special measures to ensure social housing is ring-fenced for people who cannot afford to buy into the private sector?

Mr Nigel Dodds: That is a well-made point. That is an issue in particular areas, such as the Portrush/ Portstewart area and other areas that are popular with tourists. It also applies to areas where land prices are expensive. The issue of second homes in the Portrush/Portstewart area adds to the difficulty. The need for new building is acknowledged, and the Member will agree with that. Housing associations are actively looking for suitable sites. Sites are expensive in that area, and that undoubtedly impacts on the ability of housing associations to produce viable projects at reasonable cost, and so on.
I will consider the matter. To some extent, we are at the mercy of market forces. Nevertheless, the issue identified by the Member — and raised by other Members on several occasions — is important, and we in the Department, in conjunction with the Executive and housing associations in particular, will be doing everything in our power to try to address that issue.

Housing Bill

Mr Eddie McGrady: 4. asked the Minister for Social Development to detail the timescale for the introduction of the housing Bill to the Assembly; and to make a statement.
(AQO875/01)

Mr Nigel Dodds: Subject to the approval of the Executive Committee, I hope to publish the draft housing Bill for consultation in the near future, with a view to introducing the Bill in the Assembly in June 2002. That timetable will be subject to the outcome of the consultation process.

Mr Eddie McGrady: I am delighted to hear that yet again we have a timetable in the not too distant future for this hairy and old Bill. I hope that the Bill’s gestation improves as we go along. Will the Minister give a preview of the matter and confirm whether the provisions of the proposed Bill will deal in general terms with the future of the Housing Executive as a meaningful Housing Executive? Secondly, will there be a provision in the legislation whereby the disabled facilities grant for children and other such groups would not be means-tested?

Mr Nigel Dodds: Clearly, it is our desire to ensure that the Bill is advanced at the earliest possible opportunity. The matter left the Department for Social Development some time ago. As I said, it is subject to the approval of the Executive Committee. There will then be a period of consultation, and the matter will be brought before the House.
As the Member has indicated, many of these issues have been around for years. I want to debunk the myth that many of the provisions in the housing Bill are landmark, far-reaching proposals. Some of them will make a significant difference to the quality of housing in Northern Ireland, particularly with regard to antisocial measures, grants issues and others. Some of these issues date back as far as 1995-96. It is now time that we made progress and got some of these provisions onto the statute book.
The Member raised the issue of the disabled facilities grant. That is currently under consideration and discussion, and a review is under way. I dealt with it on my last appearance at Question Time. We have not yet concluded our consideration of that matter, but it is something that we are looking at. There would be costs attached to any of the changes that the Member wants, and we would have to look at that and bring it before the Assembly. I will write to the Member about the other matter.

Mr Sammy Wilson: The Minister is right when he says that the housing Bill will contain many provisions that will be of great benefit to people in their everyday lives, including the legislation on antisocial behaviour, et cetera.
Given the delays in bringing the Bill to the House — and he might want to comment on why there have been delays — will the Minister assure us that it will be on the statute book before the end of this Assembly session?

Mr Nigel Dodds: It is impossible to give guarantees on anything in life, particularly when it comes to the Assembly. However, if we proceed to consultation in the near future, I have no doubt that we will be able to get this legislation on to the statute book well before the deadline for next year’s Assembly elections. However, if there is further slippage and the Bill does not come out of OFMDFM, where it has been for some time, in the near future, and if it does not proceed through the consultation process, then we are going to run into difficulties. People who are concerned about some of the issues to be addressed in the Bill will not understand why there is further delay and slippage on issues that have been around for a long time, particularly in the light of recent comments about the paucity of legislation coming through the Assembly.
Here is a piece of legislation that can make a real difference to people’s lives. The public will broadly welcome it. It has been given a strong welcome by the Committee for Social Development. Let us now proceed to get it out to consultation and on to the floor of the House. Let us have the debate and get some of those provisions into legislation as soon as possible.

Mr Tom Hamilton: The Minister has touched briefly on my question. Does he agree that the Committee for Social Development has long taken an interest in the progress of this important piece of legislation, and that it has been instrumental in ensuring that the legislative proposals will be subject to proper public consultation? Does he agree that it will be important to pay particular attention to what the Committee has to say about the provisions that should be in the Bill?

Mr Nigel Dodds: The Committee has had, and will continue to have, a very legitimate role in the consultation process on the Bill. Mr Hamilton is aware that the Committee recently brought forward a report that was debated in the House and was broadly in line with the provisions in the Bill.
There is sometimes a tendency when a Bill comes forward to look, not so much at what is in it, but at what else could be in it. That is quite legitimate. However, given the length of time that we have to get this Bill — and the provisions that have been around for so long — on to the statute book, it may be wiser to concentrate on getting that done. New measures should be a task for another day. I fear that if we get into a long, protracted rehearsal of all the other things that could be thrown in, it might well be that we will run out of time and not get anything done.
I am not saying that we cannot look at any other measures. The Committee has an important role to play, and I am determined that it will be given that role. It already has that role under the procedures of the Assembly.

Multi-Element Improvement Scheme - Rathfriland

Mr P J Bradley: 6. asked the Minister for Social Development what funding is to be made available to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive for its proposed multi-element improvement scheme for 47 dwellings in Rathfriland.
(AQO871/01)

Mr Nigel Dodds: The Housing Executive proposes to carry out multi-element improvements to 47 dwellings in Rathfriland at an estimated cost of more than £1 million. That scheme is programmed to start on site in the 2003-04 financial year, subject to the availability of finance at that time.

Mr P J Bradley: I note the Minister’s comment that development will not occur until 2003-04. For those who live in inferior accommodation, a year, two years or three winters is a long time away. Is there a remote chance that the Rathfriland development could be brought forward by any means?

Mr Nigel Dodds: The Member will know that the Housing Executive, as in other areas, has a planned programme of work that depends on its assessment of need. At present, the Housing Executive does not envisage that the Rathfriland scheme can be started earlier than planned. The Member asks whether there is any possibility that the scheme can be brought forward. If the Assembly were to make additional funding available to my Department, all sorts of things would be possible. I have repeatedly stressed my commitment to securing sufficient funding for housing in Northern Ireland. I know that many Members share that commitment, and I shall continue to work on that front. I shall be glad of the support of every Member of the House as we seek to come by the additional finance that would allow the measure that the Member has rightly raised, as well as other programmes, to proceed more rapidly.

Document Production - Costs

Mr Seamus Close: 7. asked the Minister for Social Development to detail the cost of producing documents for consultation in the past three years, including preparation, printing, distribution and all ancillary costs.
(AQO881/01)

Mr Nigel Dodds: No costs were incurred in 1999-2000. In 2000-01, the cost was £7,753. To date, the cost for this year has been £20,992. Those figures do not include time spent by staff in producing the documents, as separate records for such costs are not maintained.

Mr Seamus Close: I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. Was a cost benefit analysis done before those sums of money were spent? Does the Minister not agree that those sums could have contributed to hip replacements, coronary care or day care surgery, and as such, would have been better spent?

Mr Nigel Dodds: I recognise that question, as I was present for the earlier set of questions. The Member has evidently decided that he will not spend too much time thinking up new or tricky questions. As a Minister, one issue about which I hear all the time is the need for consultation. Members of the House, its Committees and other people continually ask me whether there has been consultation. If I were to turn round to Members and communities, especially on matters of housing, social welfare, community and voluntary development, and social legislation, and tell them that the Member for Lagan Valley believes that £7,000 or £20,000 is too much to spend on documentation to allow for proper and informed consultation, they would not be very happy. That expenditure represents reasonable value for money. We all share the Member’s concerns. If he is keen to pursue the issue of money being better spent, I suggest that he consider, as a means of finding extra money, the amount of money that the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety spends on the translation of documents into Irish.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: It’s in Chinese and Taiwanese.

Mr Nigel Dodds: If the Member looks at the cost of each of the questions that he has tabled on the matter, he would have had at least another £520, perhaps, to spend on hip replacements, rather than being here today.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: The Minister would be more than alarmed to learn that the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety spent £110,000 last year on the translation of her documents into the Irish language.
That money would have improved the community’s well-being significantly. Will views that are submitted as a result of the consultation be acted upon? That would prove the value for money of such consultation.

Mr Nigel Dodds: The expenditure incurred by the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is a matter for the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. Members will raise the issue of wastage, as they have in the past. Consultation is important, and the Department for Social Development does not pay lip service to it. We take people’s views into consideration. The areas for which the Department for Social Development has responsibility depend on close consultation with client groups, customers and communities.
The views of the voluntary and community sectors greatly influenced the compact between Government and the voluntary and community sectors; that was a jointly prepared document. Anyone who reads that document will see the degree of consultation and the degree to which the views that were expressed in the consultation were taken on board by the Department. It produced remarkable consensus. There are other areas that I could mention. Consultation is important, and the costs that I have outlined are by no means exorbitant.

Lifetime Homes Design

Mrs Iris Robinson: 8. asked the Minister for Social Development what steps he is taking to implement the recommendations contained in the recent report by the Chartered Institute of Housing and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation into lifetime homes design.
(AQO873/01)

Mr Nigel Dodds: I attended the launch of the report into lifetime homes, and I welcomed its publication. In 1997, the then Department of the Environment adopted lifetime homes principles for the social housing programme in Northern Ireland. In 1998, the housing association grant payable to registered housing associations for social housing schemes was adjusted to provide additional funding to support this standard by way of a special lifetime homes multiplier. In April 2001, the Department for Social Development made it a requirement for housing associations to build all new general needs housing to lifetime homes standards, and additional funding was made available to facilitate the policy change.
Uniquely in the United Kingdom, the Department for Social Development continues to give financial support to provide lifetime homes in this sector. The Department will need time to study the report’s recommendation for the establishment of a Northern Ireland building standards and design forum. Although there are obvious advantages in bringing together key groups such as the Chartered Institute of Housing and the housing associations, it is important not to duplicate areas that are already covered by existing arrangements. The report’s recommendation that building regulations should be raised to apply lifetime homes to private sector housing is a matter for the Department of Finance and Personnel. The Member may wish to raise that directly with the Minister.

Mrs Iris Robinson: What is the additional cost of providing a house to lifetime homes standard?

Mr Nigel Dodds: The costs associated with providing a house to lifetime homes standards is an issue for builders and contractors. However, implementing it would be a saving to the public purse for many years. The additional cost depends on the size, layout, design and specification of the home. The report on lifetime homes estimates the additional cost to be between £165 and £545. However, the overall costs may be higher. The Department estimates that it will cost approximately 1% of total acquisition works and associated costs. Nevertheless, over the lifetime of a house the savings for the public purse are likely to be considerable.

Disability Living Allowance Appeals

Mr Ivan Davis: 9. asked the Minister for Social Development what percentage of appeals are successful against decisions by the Social Security Agency to reject claims for disability living allowance.
(AQO884/01)

Mr Donovan McClelland: The Minister will be brief.

Mr Nigel Dodds: In the current financial year, 55% of appeals against decisions to disallow disability living allowance were successful. However, 25% of all appeals against disability living allowance decisions, including those in dispute of awards at lower than the maximum rate, were successful.

Mr Ivan Davis: Given the percentage of claims that are successful and the fact that those disputing disability allowance decisions are the most vulnerable, is it acceptable that it should take 11 months for some appeals to be heard?

Mr Nigel Dodds: That is a cause for concern. However, the latest figures show that on average it takes 72 days to prepare each appeal and to pass it to the appeals service. There have been 615 appeals this year, in comparison with the 1,219 appeals that awaited referral to the appeals service at this time last year. The situation is improving, but I would be happy to examine any specific cases that the Member wishes to draw to my attention.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Thank you, Minister. Your time is up.

Mr Francie Molloy: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister for Social Development referred to the provision of publications in Irish by the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. From a sitting position, his party leader referred to the publication of documents in Chinese and Taiwanese. Will you examine Hansard and read those comments in the light of racial equality requirements and the need to publish documentation so that proper services are provided for everyone?

Mr Donovan McClelland: I did not hear those remarks, if indeed they were made. However, the Speaker’s Office will examine Hansard.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Will you rule that Mr Molloy’s comment was not a point of order and had nothing to do with the Minister’s reply. Mr Dodds simply drew attention to the amount of money that is spent on translating documents into the Irish language?

Mr Donovan McClelland: Mr Molloy’s point of order related to a remark that was made from a sedentary position. However, we should not take up any more time.
Review of Public Administration
Debate resumed on motion:
That this Assembly notes the proposed Terms of Reference for the Review of Public Administration. — [The First Minister and The Deputy First Minister.]

Mr Francie Molloy: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. As a Member for Mid Ulster, a constituency west of the Bann, I wish to address the need to rebalance the distribution of Government services and jobs to ensure that everyone has proper access to them. The Health Service west of the Bann has undergone tremendous change as a result of a lack of provision and available finance. The Hayes review examined the matter, but, unfortunately, it was of little benefit. The Hayes review, the Burns Report and the relocation of Civil Service jobs and Departments should be regarded as part of the review, but they are separate.
The purpose of the review of the public service is to make the Departments and the Administration more accountable. The Administration must be democratically elected, and I agree with Mr Dalton that we should remove the health and education boards. That drastic step would quickly create a democratic system. Their functions should be transferred to Departments and local government bodies. However, if any new increased powers are to be transferred to local government, we must ensure that clear guarantees are incorporated. Those powers were removed from local government because the Unionist Government in Stormont misused them. Therefore a d’Hondt-type structure is needed to ensure equality at all levels, within the Assembly and in local government. We must wipe out quangos and ensure that we do not replace them with another type of quango that would undermine the system of local government.
We need to look at alternatives. We are in a period of transition. Whatever new structures are put in place, be they local government, the Assembly, or whatever the review may recommend, they must be matched up with the all-Ireland structures. A number of councils are grouped with other councils on the other side of the present border. That system continues to ensure the delivery of services.
We are considering the delivery of the waste management strategy and European programmes. There is no reason for those groups of councils on both sides of the present border not looking at the delivery of the Health Service, infrastructure, education and various other different roles that involve government structures on both sides of the border. Those structures need to be developed economically, as European money will eventually dry up, and we need to ensure that similar structures are in place to manage the present transition to all-Ireland structures.
There is a need to get on with the review. The Departments and the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are meeting the Programme for Government aim to put the review in place by spring. However, we need to see not just the outline programme, but the implementation of the review put in place and delivered on. It is not just a matter of reviewing; it is a matter of dealing with the development of that programme.
We need to make sure that that structure is well in place before the next local government elections. Last year, we had the debacle of whether the council elections should be put back for a year or two to allow the review to take place. The review may be subject to Boundary Commission hearings. Various different structures may be proposed. Local government elections should not be put back for another year while these factors are determined.
This is a great opportunity to develop and put in place a new, modern structure for local government and local administration, whether it be here at the Assembly or at local government level. It is also a great opportunity to ensure that quangos are not maintained. Some Members this morning mentioned better training for those involved in quangos. I would rather see democratically elected, accountable members. I would like to ensure that quangos are wiped out, rather than have their members retrained. We need to move into a new structure with accountable government. I say that in the broadest terms.
The needs of the local community have to be taken into account. Targeting social need is important when the structures of administration are being reviewed. We need to target social need — it should not just be three letters at the end of the review. We have to ensure that areas west of the Bann have a system that will make local government accountable and accessible and will deliver to the people.
One of the problems with the quango system, especially the health and education boards, is that no matter what a Department may say, an area board has the final say in the allocation of money and what provision is made in that area. A small area such as the Six Counties should be one administrative area. While we do not want to see one big board based in Belfast allocating all the money east of the Bann, we do want to ensure a fair distribution of the available resources.
We need to ensure that this happens quickly and in an accountable manner so that that in a short time we will be sitting here with a new structure of administration. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr George Savage: I welcome the review. It is now time to consider tightening up public administration in Northern Ireland. The review should have two principles enshrined at its heart — democratic accountability and democratic control. We must leave behind the residue of direct rule and by that I mean the large number of non-elected quangos that the Government used to run Northern Ireland before the creation of the Assembly.
Whatever system of public administration is adopted, it is important that it should dovetail with the Assembly. At present the Northern Ireland councils exist like an older, parallel level of administration. I have great admiration for, and sympathy with, the councils, because I served on one for many years. Young Members could learn the pros and cons of local administration by serving for a term on councils. It would do them no harm, and it should be an enshrined principle that Members serve on local government bodies.
Any new system should work to, be accountable to and support Stormont. Unlike one of the Members from a reputable party who spoke — I will not name him, because I do not want to get caught up in catcalling — I do not believe that we can have too much democracy. We need more democracy, not less, because it is lacking in many areas. I remind everyone that the Assembly was created by an agreement, which was a sort of peace treaty that was negotiated at the end of a long war. We should never forget that. Having a large Assembly at Stormont is preferable to what we had before.
We must consider many issues in addition to the number of councils. We want to create as professional a public representation as possible. That raises issues about the optimum size and number of councils. It is also important to build watchdog bodies into any new system. It is crucial that the whole architecture of public administration in Northern Ireland should be clear cut, easily understood and, above all, democratic.
The delay in bringing the legislation forward was mentioned this morning. We know where the blame for that delay lies. Too many times in the past three years people attempted to bring the Assembly down, and it limped from crisis to crisis. That is where time was spent. That is the nub of the matter. Now that the review of public administration is about to start, people ask why it has taken so long. We have only to cast our minds back 18 months to answer that question.
The Assembly must consider many other issues, such as what is the answer to the question of dual mandate. We must face up to reality. We can refer to the devolved Administrations in Wales and Scotland and their dual mandate roles. What is good for one Assembly is good for another. I do not care what people in other circles think — accountable democracy is the one thing that is to the fore in most people’s minds. Accountable democracy is all things to all men. We must ask where our loyalties lie. I listened to other Members, and many were talking to suit themselves. — [Interruption].
My remarks are starting to bite home.
We have a wealth of talent in Northern Ireland. People have had a good introduction to politics, and the sooner we return to accountable democracy the better. The most important consideration is the return to the days of "one man; one job". Those were the good old days, and the sooner we get them back the better, and I hope — [Interruption].

A Member: What good old days?

Mr George Savage: That is going back a long time, but the sooner we get back to that the better. No matter what the circumstances are, Northern Ireland has come through a crisis. Whether we like it or not, the situation is better now than it was three years ago.
The Assembly has a big responsibility to ensure that the review is carried out fairly. The Assembly prides itself on its democracy. The sooner accountable democracy returns to Northern Ireland, the better.

Mr Arthur Doherty: As a member of the Committee for the Environment, I endorse the initial comments on the terms of reference that were agreed by the Committee at its meeting on 21 February. The Committee Chairperson submitted them to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.
The SDLP is engaged in exhaustive internal and external consultation on the matter, and it will publish its conclusions in due course. Every conclusion will reflect the aims, objectives and policies of the SDLP and will flow from its unique philosophy and principles. The SDLP’s principles are based on its passion for social and political justice. The party is firmly anti- sectarian and seeks to achieve true unity and equity by consent. It is absolute in its defence of and promotion of human rights. It respects, cherishes and accommodates difference. It looks towards the creation of true partnerships.
The Government of Northern Ireland, as exemplified in the Assembly, is a goulash. It is a highly seasoned stew, a complicated melange of right, left and centre, from far right to soft centre, democrat, totalitarian, libertarian, fascist, socialist, fundamentalist, religious, quasi-religious, atheist, humanist, ethnic, indigenous and intrusive. Public administration in Northern Ireland must take account of the complexities of that mixture and, as far as is possible and reasonable, accommodate those differences.
My initial personal comments will eschew the particular and be limited to a few generalities. The first relates to the dangers of unprincipled prediction or, more accurately, the self-fulfilling prophecy. How often does that fulfilment create difficulty, disorder and sometimes despair? How many of Northern Ireland’s young people have had their lives blighted and unfulfilled because they were deemed a failure at the age of ten? We run the risk of messing up the process if we take undue account of the predictions of self-appointed savants in the media, and even in the Chamber, who claim that their solution is inevitable and right. Those people call for the removal of councils, boards, trusts, quangos and partnerships. However, what would replace them? Would there be a lean, mean Government machine? As they say in Magilligan "Aye, likely".
That bout of cynicism is, for the large part, a response to the trumpeting about what must be done about councils. It is claimed that if the number of councils were cut to five or six, the problem would be solved. Perhaps 26 councils are not needed. However, before the Assembly butchers an elected and truly local administration — a community service that, however flawed, maintained a degree of sanity and democracy in this torturous society for 30 years — it must be sure that its replacement will be better. The decision must be based on neither mathematics nor population engineering, but on people — on individuals and their need to be able to communicate face to face with their leaders.
The sadist who contrived the appalling acronym "quango" virtually guaranteed that those bodies would not be taken seriously. "Quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation" is a pretentious term, but "quango" is a ludicrous one — it is like a cross between a duck and a dingo. We are right to criticise the undemocratic nature of remote, appointed and imperfectly accountable bodies. However, the Assembly must acknowledge the need for public bodies that draw together and make good use of the talents of people, elected and non-elected, who by their special experience, expertise and commitment might give valuable service to a Government of the people. However, to give those groups stupid names would spoil their purpose.
I shall conclude with a litany. Public administration must be efficient, effective, economic, open, transparent, accountable, democratic, equitable, inclusive and compassionate. If we get those few things right, we shall have it made.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I am sure that the House was very entertained by the last speech. We shall have to take another look at the hybrids that were so picturesquely described. We did not think that they had such a genealogy or that they were of such importance to those who study birds, beasts and other creatures. We were glad to hear that contribution. I am glad that I am not on, nor have ever had the pleasure of being on, any of those bodies. I am glad that I am excluded from them. Thank God for that. That is one thing to say on Monday — thank God for that.
As Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development, I shall speak on the Committee’s behalf. The Committee met last Friday to discuss and consider the review and asked me to make this agreed statement.
Public administration in its broadest sense lies at the heart of the Committee’s weekly deliberations in this Building and elsewhere and features much in the business of the House. The Committee welcomes the statement that the involvement of the Assembly and its Committees from the outset will be essential to the review’s success. However, there are issues about how individual Committees might be involved. In his reply, I want the Minister to outline how he thinks he can compel Committees to make a vital contribution to the review.
Members and their parties have a wide variety of views. We heard a ringing call from the Front Bench to Mr Trimble to give up his seat in Upper Bann. He may not have much trouble doing that — somebody may take his seat from him. What we heard from the Front Bench of the Unionist Party would then be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The Member strangely advised us that we should all have dual membership of the Assembly and local councils, where we could be taught the ABC of public administration. However, that duality should be banned upon election to higher places such as the Westminster Parliament, or even the European Parliament, because we would be unfit to take in what was going on in the Assembly and in council meetings. It is nice to hear such a ringing call from that Member about the resignation of his leader. I trust that the leader of that party will consider it and act accordingly.
Members of other parties will bring their individuality, political ingenuity and political findings to the debate. However, bearing in mind that each Statutory Committee has a scrutiny, policy development and consultation role to play on behalf of the Department with which it is associated, there is an argument that participation by Committees in the review should be limited to the consideration of matters concerning their related Departments. Will each Committee have the opportunity to review the reviewers? Will Committees be able to summons them to appear before them to find out why the reviewers are making the representations they are?
We do not know who those people are. The debate would have been more interesting had the First Minister announced their names. We could then have examined their credentials and asked why they were appointed.
Some time out of the blue, the First Minister will tell us who they are at a meeting in the Long Gallery. It will certainly not be first announced in the House. Nothing is first announced in the House.
Members also noted that rural proofing is mentioned in the suggested parameters to inform those who will be conducting the review. The joke is that last Friday the Minister told the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development that the group that she had set up to examine rural proofing had not yet come to a final opinion on what it really is, so if no one knows what rural proofing is, how can parameters be set? Members of the Committee are concerned that little if any progress has been made on implementing the policy on rural proofing, because it has not yet been defined. That was, and is, an integral part of the Programme for Government, but so far, two years later, nothing has been done.
I lay aside my cap as Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development to make representation on matters about the debate that concern me and members of my party. We should all be concerned that the progress boasted about by all the members of the pro-agreement parties has not taken place. If Mr Close had made his statement at the time of the referendum, he would have been up to date. Many of the things he said during the referendum debate were retracted in his speech today. I did not hear many of the pro-agreement parties crying out about 10 Departments having become 11 with the setting up of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. It was all "jobs for the boys", and everyone had to get in, because if they had not done so, there would have been no agreement. No one would have been let in unless there was enough to go round. Unfortunately, they hung themselves up on the recommendation from Europe on how that should be done. It was never thought that two of the seats could fall to the Democratic Unionist Party, as perhaps could a third. We were told about rogue Ministers who would not be allowed to take their seats. However, it did not work out that way, because some of us were wise enough to investigate the legal position.

Mr Seamus Close: As one of the boys who did not get a job, could we not have been arguing to ensure that the Democratic Unionist Party was represented on a power-sharing Executive? We are disappointed that it has not taken its seats. Does the Member recognise that we are debating a review whose credibility lies in the fact is that it is prepared to look at everything and ensure that ratepayers and taxpayers get best value for money?

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I am not responsible for the Member’s not getting a job. It was a member of his own party who kept him from getting a good job in the Assembly. Do not blame the DUP; he should look to his own kennel and deal with the person who treated him so disgracefully. The DUP is blamed for many things, but it cannot be blamed for that. That had nothing to do with the DUP. I wish that everything could go the Member’s way, but it will not do that, and part of his statement admitted that.
This review is not open, above board and transparent. First, it will be under the control of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. The First Minister and his former Deputy First Minister did not have much regard for the Committee of the Centre.
They have attended one of its meetings. Two junior Ministers were appointed to help the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, but neither could be present at the meetings. Therefore, the Committee of the Centre has not received great encouragement.
Mr Gallagher told us that the Committee of the Centre should not be allowed to review the review. It is little wonder; he knows that the Committee would introduce independent thought into how the review should take place.
The first thing that we should do is make a representation to the Westminster Parliament that the Committee of the Centre should become a Statutory Committee with powers equivalent to the other Committees, so that it can do its job thoroughly. Until we have a Statutory Committee to look after the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, we will not have fair play, transparency or equality in the Assembly. We can be sure of that.
The First Minister has told us nothing today. We do not know who these people are. We do not know how much they will be paid. We do not know when they will meet. We do not know how they will be monitored. We do not know whether a Committee will be able to call them before it. We do not know anything. We are just told that the review is being set up. Given all that, the First Minister has the cheek to tell us that it will be made up of independent people. I am sure that when we examine their credentials, we will know where their independence lies.
The previous Member who spoke jovially said a great deal about quangos. However, you do not get to be on a quango because you have intelligence. You get to be on a quango because you are a safe person who will do what the powers that be want you to do. To qualify for a position on a quango you must nail your colours to the mast; you must fight a seat; and you must ensure that a Democratic Unionist candidate is standing for that seat. The Democratic Unionist candidate will beat you, and, when you are beaten, you will then get a job on a quango.
My party has no seats on any quangos. It has been lied to by Secretaries of State; it has been lied to by the Prime Minister; it has been lied to by officers in various Governments. It is represented on the Housing Executive only because the Northern Ireland Housing Council appointed the person that it nominated.
Mr Close complained that he did not get a job. The Alliance Party got plenty of jobs on the quangos. If you are a defeated member of the Alliance Party, you are on your way, and you do not need to serve a year in local government to gain experience. As was recommended by the spokesperson of the Official Unionist Party, you can get in immediately. It is a safe journey to a place on a quango.
Quangos have eternal life. Their membership, which is made up of safe men, is renewed from time to time. Someone brought me a list from a certain Government office, and I had a look at the names that are considered each time new appointments are made to the quangos. It made for most interesting reading. I wondered why so many people were on so many bodies. I discovered that this was the overall list used every time an appointment needs to be made to a quango. Therefore, a job on a quango is a job for life.
Nothing will be done to these quangos. In fact, we are setting up another quango today. It is a review quango that the Assembly knows nothing about. It does not know who will be on it. Does the First Minister know who will be on it?
Perhaps the Deputy First Minister can assist us by giving some clue as to whom he plans to appoint to the review body. It would liven up the debate if he could tell us a bit more. We are like Oliver Twist, sir; we are asking for more. The Deputy First Minister should tell us something more about that wonderful organisation. Of course, the review body will not report until after the next election, which is a wonderful scenario.
Once they have been defeated and have licked the dust in the local government elections, just look at how many men will be lining up and saying "Quango for me please. I fought my seat but I lost it, so there must be a quango for me." Why shall we not hear anything from that body before the election? Is it because those people are so capable, as the spokesman for the Official Unionist Party told us today? Many people in local government are very capable. However, is it through fear that some Members will lose out in the election that causes the review body to be careful before it reaches out its hands to the council?
Northern Ireland councils spend £260 million a year, which is only 3% of the country’s total Budget. Therefore, why does everyone blame the councils? The boards’ expenditure is £8·5 million. The expenditure of the trusts, area boards and other major non-elected quangos amounts to almost half of the country’s Budget. The quangos do not give us value for money so they should go. Democracy can control expenditure only if elected representatives are in charge of it.
I love to listen to all those people attacking politicians. Politicians are evidently the worst people in the world. The only reason that such people attack politicians is that they cannot be politicians themselves. Those people cannot get elected. I know them; I have met them, and I have seen the miserable votes that people cast for them. I have seen them standing with faces longer than a Lurgan spade when the election baskets are opened. I know all about them, and I wonder why they are so against the politicians. However, if the politicians that are elected to the Assembly have their hands tied, they cannot be blamed for what happens in the country. We cannot be blamed if half of our budgets are given to non-elected bodies — to quangos.
The review must first look at the Assembly, the way in which it works and what is expected of it. It must put the Assembly into the driving seat of politics in Northern Ireland. Here is where the decisions should be made, but they cannot be made under the present system. I was amazed when I received the ‘Draft Terms of Reference and Parameters for the Review of Public Administration’. It is a great document. I recommend that Members read it tonight when they go to bed — they will be asleep within one minute. I see the Deputy First Minister smiling, because he knows what I am about to say. The document says that that quango will do something — it will
"bring forward options for reform".
"Reform" is a good Protestant word. The Member who spoke before me did not refer to a single Catholic or Protestant when he spoke of the membership of those bodies. I am glad to say that I am a Protestant. I do not need to wear that across my chest — everyone knows that I am a Protestant.
I shall read more from this interesting document:
"bring forward options for reform which are consistent with the arrangements and principles of the Belfast Agreement".
I want the Minister to be honest with the House and tell us what the arrangements and principles of the Belfast Agreement are. Then I want the Sinn Féiners, the Alliance Party, the Women’s Coalition — who are absent — and the other absent Members to tell us what those arrangements and principles are. Finally, I want to ask the five different parties in the Official Unionist Party about their opinions on the arrangements and principles of the Belfast Agreement. [Interruption]. I say to Mr Kennedy that confession is good for the soul. They do not know — that is the trouble with the Belfast Agreement. Just as in the book of Judges, every man does what is right in his own eyes. They all have different views, and where the agreement can be twisted to mean something that suits certain people, it will be twisted.
The Deputy First Minister has an impossible task. He intends to bring forward options for reform consistent with the arrangements and principles of the Belfast Agreement. Which version of the Belfast Agreement? Which spectacles does one put on? Does one put on the very green spectacles of Sinn Féin/IRA, the less green spectacles of the SDLP or the tinctured orange spectacles of some members of the Official Unionist Party? What glasses do you wear?
Everybody in this country knows that this is yet another review to put matters on the long finger, to delay matters until after the elections or until the people have to vote in a vacuum and in darkness, and then to speed on to gain control. It will not work, and that is clear from the fact that we are having this debate today.
Mr Close made a valid point that I was going to make myself. This is an interesting year — we were to have a review anyway. That is not something new, but we are not going to have it this year. We will have an announcement of a review this year, not the review itself, and we will not receive the report or have the finish of that review for many days to come.
Yet, face up to it — do Members not receive representations from the sick in their constituencies about the state of the Health Service? Do Members not go to the hospital wards and see people, not in a waiting room, but on a trolley? Do Members not see the sad state of our Health Service and talk to nurses, doctors and GPs about that matter? Do such people not come to Members? I could tell story after story about what is happening at this very moment in our Health Service. Surely the Assembly should not be engaged in review; rather it should be engaged in action. The Assembly should say "The Health Service needs our attention; let us put our best into that". That issue crosses the entire political, religious and sectarian divide. Those people need help immediately — they cannot wait.
We have troubles in education. Broken-down mobile classrooms, which defile the schoolyard, are still being used to school our children. People cannot believe that they are school classrooms. Education has problems, so should we not be attacking that? People who are not housed, who cannot get jobs or who bear the burden and heat of the day surround us, and yet we are discussing a review — a review with experts. We need somebody with enough expertise to help us to deal with the challenge of the present hour.
Remember, this House and its Members — no matter what we may think — will go. There is nothing like the election and the ballot box for giving people the chance to say what they think — and they will say what they think. We have an opportunity to do something. Instead of talking about something far off in the future, we should open our eyes to the present predicament. The House should decide that the time for action has come, not after the election but immediately. We should apply ourselves to good administration to save our Health Service, our education, our local services and all the rest. Those are the prime things to which we must direct our attentions.

Mr Barry McElduff: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome Dr Paisley’s emphasis on the health crisis and on underfunding in the Health Service. It was useful to hear that. I also seek clarification on whether Dr Paisley was offering to engage in direct dialogue with Sinn Féin about the principles underpinning the Good Friday Agreement. In engaging both Mr Molloy and myself directly, I felt he was clearly inviting us to take part in direct dialogue. If that is the case, I accept that invitation on behalf of our party.
Cuirim fáilte roimh an díospóireacht seo, nó is ábhar fíorthábhachtach é agus sinn sa Tionól ag pleanáil modh rialtais don todhchaí.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this crucial debate. The point has already been made that it is overdue. When will the review be formally launched? Perhaps the Deputy First Minister can be specific about that. What will the timetable of the review be, bearing in mind that the next scheduled date for council elections is May 2005? New arrangements would have to be implemented before or by that time. Will the review be truly root and branch, because we all agree that an unduly complex mosaic of agencies and bodies administers the small area that is the Six Counties?
Mr Molloy reminded us that we are part of a society in transition. We must consider public service delivery models and mechanisms that will result in efficiency and effectiveness. I am drawn to the section of the ‘Draft Terms of Reference and Parameters for the Review of Public Administration’ that states:
"We need to consider the best use of our budget and ensure that any reorganisation creates the most effective and efficient services to the public, avoiding duplication and enabling managerial and bureaucratic expenditure to be minimised while the maximum resources are spent on front line services."
I particularly welcome that. This is where the North/ South dimension, underpinned in the Good Friday Agreement and in the new political institutions, must loom large in new arrangements. This should be aimed at avoiding precisely what we should avoid — the duplication of provision; it should aim at judicious expenditure of resources and at avoiding wastefulness.
Two systems on one small island for practically everything is an economic nonsense. The review of public administration should look beyond the border of the Six Counties. Partnerships, group systems and amalgams should be looked at similarly in the North and beyond. Presently there are many partnerships, or fluid collectives, such as the Irish central border area network, dealing with waste management, promotion of tourism and infrastructure development. We must look at models of good practice elsewhere in Ireland and Europe.
If this is a review for the twenty-first century, and if it is projecting decades into the twenty-first century, then we would be well advised to think beyond the parameters of the existing political entity — the Six Counties. It should be about removing the democratic deficit. We have gone some way down that road already, but as regards planning, there is a real democratic deficit. Presently there are no elected representatives from district councils on health and social services boards, for example, but there are elected representatives on the education and library boards. So there is an anomaly there.
What type of individual tends to end up on such bodies? That must be looked at so as to avoid old cultures and old hierarchies. If Maurice Hayes’s proposals for the future delivery of health services are anything to go by, then County Tyrone and County Fermanagh will be emasculated in the reconfiguration of public services. Presently Mr Hayes’s proposals suggest that there should be a northern set-up, a southern set-up and an eastern set-up within the context of the Six Counties. The western region has effectively disappeared. I would hate to think that Maurice Hayes would be portentous of the future. Social deprivation is often defined by availability of access to essential services, and historically there has been huge underinvestment in and huge neglect of west of the Bann. We all know that. Let us ensure that that is not made permanent in the future.
I am not sure how this should be weighted, but some regard must also be shown for a sense of place — where people work, go to school, shop and enjoy recreation. There is a cultural factor to consider.
I want to hear more detail from the Minister about the democratic input and about how the consultation will be conducted. This review must enable and reach local communities. People talk about numbers and layers, but the ultimate issue is the quality of services. We must strive to achieve better quality provision of public services. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Tom Hamilton: As a member of the Committee for Social Development I welcome the review, and I suspect that I am not alone in thinking that it is long overdue in the context of the establishment of the Assembly. I listened with interest to the justification for the terms of reference being drafted in such a way as to allow the review team to address issues that it believes warrant it. I will return to that point.
Before I do, I wish to make some observations and ask a few general questions about the terms of reference, which I feel will be of concern to the Committee for Social Development. I agree that a range of critically important issues must be addressed, but should they not be more clearly identified at this stage?
The Committee for Social Development is keenly interested to know if the review will extend to, and include, Next Steps agencies such as the Social Security Agency and the Child Support Agency? Will it extend to the role of the Housing Executive? That matter was raised by Dr Paisley among others. We would like to know who the members of the review team will be. Who has chosen them, or who will choose them? Will they be paid?
We also want to know whether they will be different from the independent experts referred to. Are the independent experts different from the independent advisors referred to in the letter from the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister dated 12 February? How much is the review expected to cost? What is the breakdown of that expenditure?
In common with other Members, I am surprised and somewhat disappointed that there is no time frame for the review. Surely the terms of reference for such a review must be focused and should include intermediate milestones and, above all, a date for completion. Otherwise, it will become a nightmare to manage. It could go on forever, and at a significant cost to the public purse. Surely it would have been sensible to produce a definitive list of organisations to be included in the review, and to test that list first on the Floor of the House. We are told that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will look closely at the Assembly about oversight of the review. What arrangements have been made in that regard?
I began by saying that I welcomed the review. I restate that position. However, I want assurances — assurances that the process has been thought through fully, assurances that the Assembly will be fully and properly involved and, finally, assurances about the management of the project, the costs involved and the timescale for its completion.

Mr Sammy Wilson: I welcome the debate, but it is a great pity that the First Minister has not been present for the whole debate. Had he been here for Mr Hamilton’s speech, which raised many important questions, he might have realised the degree of concern that exists even in his own party. Mr Hamilton asked many independent questions. He has probably ensured that he will remain an independent Back-Bencher after that speech. It is no use that David Trimble is not here.
The Deputy First Minister has had a long session here today. After resigning as Minister of Finance and Personnel, he probably thought that he had escaped listening to these long debates. However, the First Minister must have pulled rank and said that he had to sit there and listen to all of this. He has had a bit of an eye-opener today. He has had lectures on a political goulash recipe from his friend, Mr Arthur Doherty, and heard a bit about genetic engineering and quangos. He has also heard about crossing ducks and emus, or ducks and dingoes — I am not too sure what it was.

A Member: Dodos and emus.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Dodos.
Mr Savage told him about the good old days when there were no double mandates such as his leader has today. Mr Close gave him a lesson in wheeling political wheelbarrows and ensuring that one makes no decisions by pushing things in a review ahead of oneself. I am not too sure what Mr Molloy said. On one hand, he was saying that he wanted to have fewer boards; on the other, he did not want them all centralised. On one hand he was saying that he wanted powers given to councils so that they could exercise cross-border responsibilities; on the other, he did not want the councils to have those.
It is a pity that the First Minister is not here, because what we are debating today is yet another example of the broken promises that he made to his party, to the Assembly and to the people of Northern Ireland. When the Administration was first set up, the DUP criticised the creation of 10 Departments for purely political reasons. He came under some criticism from his own party.
He wrote to all his party members saying that the costs would be neutral over the four-year period because there would be a review of administration.
That, incidentally, was echoed in an answer that I was given during the first Budget debate by the now Deputy First Minister when I raised the fact that the public administration review had not taken place. We were told that we would have to wait and look at it in the context of the full four years of the Administration, that it would be cost-neutral over the four years. Perhaps that is the answer to Mr Close’s earlier question about when that period was meant to start. I do not know when it was meant to start, but it is clear from what the First Minister has said, and from what the Deputy First Minister said in his previous post some time ago, that it was meant to be in place and delivering savings by the end of this session of the Assembly. They have failed to deliver on that promise.
It is not a new promise. In his 24 October 2000 statement on the Programme for Government, the First Minister said:
"We will introduce a review of public administration to ensure, among other things, that the costs of administration are minimised."
Now, a year and a half after that promise was made, he is just getting round to publishing the terms of reference of the review, let alone getting the review under way. Ironically, at the same time as he made that promise, he also promised to progress work on the implementation bodies and areas of North/South co-operation. He got ahead with that one. He made sure that there was progress on that. That says something about the priorities of this Administration. Many Unionists are now turning against the Ulster Unionist Party because of those priorities. That party makes promises about saving money on public administration, but it does not keep them. However, when it comes to North/South bodies, it seems to jump through all kinds of hoops to make sure that it keeps its coalition partners happy.
It is also significant that in October 2000 the then Minister of the Environment made a promise in the heat of the moment, probably to deflect some criticism. He said that the Ulster Unionist Party would deliver when it came to saving on administration. At his party conference in October 2000, he said:
"Under this party, I will make sure that it [the top-heavy public administration in Northern Ireland] is changed."
He also said that he would have a team to draw up proposals and make recommendations before the local government elections last May. Almost a year later, that promise has not been delivered. It may have been a useful promise to make at a fairly contentious party conference, but the promise has not been fulfilled.
It could be argued that that is because the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is overworked. However, it has ensured that it has plenty of resources to carry out the work. We discussed the Budget proposals a couple of weeks ago; there was a line in the Budget for almost £16 million for
"assisting the Executive in making and implementing well-informed and timely policy decisions and improving public services."
The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister now spends nearly £40 million every year, yet we have no flow of legislation to the Assembly. We have had promises of reviews that have not taken place. A year and a half late, the review of public administration has finally come before the Assembly. All parties have generally welcomed it, although listening carefully to what has been said, it is clear that the road ahead is not going to be an easy one.
Do not forget that attempts were made under direct rule to reform public administration. I recall that one of the first debates in the Forum for Political Dialogue was on the reform of education and on reducing the number of education and library boards. That was five years ago. Have we got rid of them? No, we still have them. I do not know whether there is much contact among Ministers in the Executive, but the Minister of Education is currently trying to sell a proposal that not only should we have five education and library boards, but 20 collegiates as well, which will form yet another layer of education administration.
Let us not pretend that this will be easy. Mr Savage and Mr A Doherty both talked about the value of local councils. Mr Savage said that, under the Belfast Agreement, the people ratified the structures that have been agreed to date. The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have made it clear in the document that we have received today that the number of Departments is not up for review.
Everyone has criticised quangos today, but once we start to identify which quangos are going, I suspect that even the Alliance Party will not be jumping up and down to get rid of them all. As my Colleague Dr Paisley has pointed out, nobody has benefited more. In fact, it is well known that the Alliance Party has its own version of the quiz game ‘Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?’ It is called "Who Wants To Be A Quango Chair?" It has had some big winners in the past: Bob Cooper won a seat; Oliver Napier won a seat; John Cushnahan won a seat; Will Glendinning won a seat. They have all had them. They were failed politicians, but they were well rewarded for their service. When it comes to looking at quangos, I suspect that there will not be the same unanimity as has been displayed here today.
I am disappointed that the number of Departments is not going to be looked at, because that is an indefensible situation. That point has already been made. I have another disappointment that the Deputy First Minister may be able to clarify. In the First Minister’s speech, he said that we need to lead the review and that the Executive will lead the process. Yet in the same breath, almost in the same sentence, he talked about the process having independence. Will the First Minister and the Executive lead the review, or will it be independent? How does one reconcile those two contradictory statements? There will be some concern if the review is led either by the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister or by the Executive. If it has taken this long to establish the terms of reference of the review and get them into the public domain, how long will it be before the review is completed?
I will not go over all the points that other Members have covered in the terms of reference document. Some that have not been mentioned are important. First, we will consider whether the public service is the best way to deliver service. That is important. I know that, as politicians, we sometimes believe that if is not done through the public service, it is no good. The Deputy First Minister will be aware of that, having been the Minister of Finance and Personnel. If we are to move towards a situation in which we raise money through bonds, the delivery of public services may have to change – they may have to be delivered in another way.
Taking into consideration what has been said about quangos, we have to find ways genuinely to harness the expertise that exists in civil society. I am glad that reference has been made to that. To use the terms employed in the review document, what is the future role of non-elected people who can bring expertise and experience to the delivery of particular services? In many walks of life that degree of expertise has been useful in public bodies. Another principle is to avoid duplication and enable managerial and bureaucratic expenditure to be minimised. I wonder, however, whether the Executive are listening to that when I see the Department of Education pushing the proposals of the Burns Report.
The debate is crucial. As other Members have said, we cannot allow this to drag on. It must not be an exercise in getting the Executive over the next election. Given that a promise has been made, do they put it in a wheelbarrow and push it in front of them? We need political decisions not political barrow boys, so I hope that we see the real delivery of firm proposals this side of Assembly elections.

Mr David Ford: It is a great pity that Dr Paisley is not in the Chamber because I was going to — possibly for the first time in this place — welcome the commitment that he gave to Alliance principles when he soundly annunciated the need for openness, accountability and inclusiveness. Mr S Wilson also followed up that point to some extent. Unfortunately, Dr Paisley went on to spoil it by casting aspersions, as did Mr Wilson, about jobs on quangos, suggesting that they were a particular feature of the Alliance Party. He may have gone back in history to the 1970s with some accuracy, although I am not aware what quango John Cushnahan was on. Members should be careful before they make such allegations.
In the last figures that I read more DUP Members came through the appointments procedure than Alliance Members. There were about 12 Ulster Unionists, 10 SDLP Members, one DUP Member and no Alliance Members. Mr Wilson may be just ahead of us, but he should be a little more careful.
If my interest should be declared, I admit to membership of four quangos as a nominee of Antrim Borough Council, three advisory groups and the Lower Bann LEADER. If my fellow councillors are prepared to put their confidence in me, perhaps the DUP should be less critical. There is no doubt that Northern Ireland is somewhat overgoverned and significantly overadministered. In that respect the review is long overdue. We must balance efficiency and effectiveness on the one hand with democratic accountability on the other. There is a trade-off between the two. Traditional partnerships must also be examined. Members are focusing on councils, but they account for only a small proportion of public expenditure. However, the question of whether fewer and larger councils with more functions are appropriate or whether we keep the present pattern with its local representation is not primarily what the review should focus on. Fundamentally, the issue is that of the major elements of administration — Government Departments and the quangos that are accountable to them.
First, there are more quangos than district councils. Secondly, they have more members than district councils. Thirdly, they have bigger budgets than councils. Apart from quangos that operate as advisory bodies and bring in the kind of expertise that some have mentioned, the review should focus on those Executive functions that are wielded by non-elected bodies, given that we now have an elected democratic body. That is the only way in which we can address public expenditure and more effective service seriously.
There have been references today to private finance and to how we deal with such matters. I have no ideological hang-ups about that; however, the small capital market in Northern Ireland, the bureaucracy for relatively small-scale projects and the question of whether the public-service ethos that has developed here is amenable to bringing in such private expertise from outside Northern Ireland mean that there will be no easy answers. We must look for some more novel ways of funding.
Effectiveness is a major challenge to this region because we have many features that are different from other regions in the UK and, to an extent, different from the Republic. We have not really addressed how we will meet the additional costs of providing public services across rural areas. A relatively sparse population over most of the south and west of Northern Ireland will create significant additional costs. We must work out how to address that so that we can provide local, quality services, such as health, for those who currently cannot get access to them.
Fundamentally more important than that are the hidden extra costs. We choose to maintain separate facilities that do not need to be maintained, but they are promoted because they recognise the divisions in this society. Within Greater Belfast, we already have many sports and leisure facilities that are seen as either Catholic or Protestant-used. The duplication of leisure facilities sitting short distances apart is something that we should not tolerate if we are serious about cutting the costs of public administration.
The position is similar with health centres, but the worst example is schools. In many cases we divide children on the grounds of gender, in almost all cases on the grounds of ability and in virtually every case on the grounds of religious background. There is no doubt that that adds to the cost of schools and to their administration and public transport costs. There are two examples of this in my constituency of South Antrim. When they reach 11 years of age, nearly all Catholics in the growing population of Crumlin leave every morning to go to school elsewhere. Randalstown, which has a similarly growing population, sees all of the Protestants leaving it, and, of course, every child who passes the 11-plus leaves both those villages. If these concerns are to be dealt with — and they are matched by education administration — we need to start to tackle the issues of such divided facilities seriously.
Similarly, there is duplication in further and higher education. The most obvious examples are Stranmillis and St Mary’s teacher training facilities, which sit two or three miles apart. They teach students to run a common curriculum, and they even manage to have a core curriculum for religious education. However, for some bizarre reason, we segregate our teachers.
Sammy Wilson quoted the First Minister as saying:
"we need to lead the Review and decide its outcome."
It appears that the "we" refers to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, and then the Executive will lead the process. He missed another "we" at the end of the statement.
"we look forward to constructive dialogue with Members throughout the process."
Apparently "we" again refers to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. I find the concept of the royal ‘we’ coming from Ministers difficult to take. However, I ask Ministers to reassess how the review can be accepted across the community if it is seen to be in the pockets of two Ministers, or even in the pockets of twelve Ministers.
As Séamus Close said, we believe — "we" meaning the Alliance Party — that the review must be fully independent and radical so that it can bring in external objectivity rather than purely the thinking from within the public administration and so that it can choose a variety of expertise. However, we do not wish to burden OFMDFM with any more work, having heard the Deputy First Minister, on Friday night, outline his difficulties with the amount of work that comes through that Department. I am aware that he is only recently in the position, and that he has long carried the burden of the Department of Finance and Personnel. We do not wish to overburden his civil servants.
However, when the First Minister talked about innovation when conducting the review, it was a disappointment to hear that that meant a web site — that is not an innovation. We need to bring in outside expertise to make the review fully effective, to retain openness and yet to keep in touch with the Executive, the Assembly and the wider public.
That would be proper innovation — not just talking about a web site.
We need to see a formal link between the review, the Assembly and the Executive, whether that be through the Committee of the Centre or the establishment of an independent Ad Hoc Committee.
I congratulate the Deputy First Minister on his stamina. He has clearly not lost his ability to sit through, and take account of, long debates in the Chamber. It is unrealistic to expect a full response to these concerns today. It is to be hoped, however, that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will reconsider the issues raised, not just by those on the Opposition Benches at this end of the Chamber, but by the Back Benchers in the two governing parties at the other end, and bring back a slightly different set of proposals for us to consider.

Mr Mark Durkan: I am pleased at the level of interest that Members have shown in the review, as evidenced by the way in which they have contributed to today’s debate. As was indicated in the correspondence earlier with the Committee Chairpersons and the Speaker, the active involvement of the Assembly will be important to the success of the review. The purpose of the debate is to start the process whereby the Assembly can offer views on the terms of reference. Some Members did do that, although others did not and went on excursions on other matters ranging far beyond the issue of public administration.
I appreciate Members’ comments on the issues that they wish to see addressed, amplified or underlined in the terms of reference. Individual Committees have also begun to offer their views. That is helpful, and the Executive will take those into account. When we say "we" or "us", we mean the Executive. We propose to seek formal Assembly endorsement of the terms of reference once the pre-consultation exercise has been concluded. That is one part of demonstrating that the review is not in the pockets of Ministers or civil servants. The Executive have furnished the Assembly and the Committees with draft terms of reference, and those will not be finalised without our consideration of the feedback and the suggestions made. That principle will extend throughout the life of the review, because the review will change a range of issues, and it will touch many aspects, not just of public administration but of everyday social, economic, cultural and environmental life in the region. The review will have an effect that will go well beyond the lifetime of this first Assembly — and even well beyond the lifetime of the second Assembly. If we consider the life cycle of the structures involved, these are arrangements that could last for a generation. In the review, therefore, it is right that we fully engage with the full range of public interests. It is also right to bring forward the review as an undertaking of government by the Government.
In the House, I am used to hearing Members criticising, and alleging, remote-controlled Government. They say that too much of devolution has so far involved establishing reviews rather than people getting on with the job of government itself. Members have said that when reviews have been established, those reviews have been at arm’s length to ensure that they are "politically disownable" and that, when the outcomes of the reviews have emerged, they, in turn, have been the subject of yet more reviews and more consultation.
People have criticised reviews that were carried out by that type of remote-control method. Now there is criticism of the type of review that touches issues right across the Government. We want to ensure that the centre of gravity for the review, and the responsibility for driving and implementing it, rests with the Government. However, we want to provide not only for full consultation but for real, independent input and insight. People seem to be criticising that as well, and we are only at the start of the pre-consultation period.
Some Members, including Dr Paisley, seem to have assumed that we knew all the answers before we heard the views of Members or Committees. One criticism that we have had to date is that we have not given a complete account of what the outcome will be or the full details, structure and methodology of the review. We are in a genuine pre-consultation exercise, and I think it is a bit rich for people to throw that criticism at us.
We have not yet launched the review, although we are still on target to launch it in the spring of this year. When we seek the Assembly’s endorsement of the terms of reference we will be clear about it, and I hope that many Members will have a clearer understanding of many of the issues that have been raised than the understanding they have displayed today.
The timescale, which will include milestones, and the budget for the review will be set out alongside the fuller role that we envisage for independent experts. We must underline that those issues all require the Executive’s approval. They will not be decided at the whim of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. It would not be right for me to pre-empt that process, despite being pressed by many Members and personally tempted to do so. That process will involve the Executive’s giving full consideration to the feedback that they receive from Committees and the views they have heard from Members.
I listened to all the views that were expressed. The First Minister and I, together with the other Ministers in the Executive, will consider them carefully. I wonder whether some Members listened carefully to some of the things they said today, because there seemed to be contradictions in some of the contributions.
We will consult other groups, including unions, representatives of local government and the wider public sector, and we will take their views into account. Consultation must, and will, be a major feature of the review once it gets under way.
It is clear from the debate that Members have grasped the scale of the task ahead and the complexity of the issues to be addressed. With a rigorous examination of all the issues and options, and through a highly consultative and participative approach, we will try to build a consensus — yes, a consensus — for the type of change that is required, and we will arrive at well-informed decisions that will bring real benefits to all.
Some Members asked about issues that ought to be included in the review. Some people seemed to suggest that the review should be able to question some of the principles or structures in the Good Friday Agreement. If we are to conduct the review with a view to maximising consensus, we must recognise first that public administration, the issues that we are dealing with and the 30-year-old structures that we have inherited are different from the matters that were addressed by the principles and structures of the Good Friday Agreement.
We must recognise also that to try to include the issues from the Good Friday Agreement would probably place more hurdles on the road to consensus than would trying to concentrate on the actual review of public administration.
The Executive might also consider what Members are saying about fundamentally questioning the number of existing Departments. Would it really offer the Assembly the opportunity to have a telling and cogent impact on the review of public administration if Committees felt that they were spending more time defending the existence of the relevant Departments and trying to deal with that type of "turf" consideration and positioning rather than examining the issues of public administration beyond the Assembly and the Departments?
(Mr Speaker in the Chair)
The decisions that emerge from the review will have implications for the functions of Departments. There are provisions in the legislation that allow Departments to be changed and functions to be transferred, and for the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to bring forward proposals for a different dispensation regarding departmental structures. That provision will always exist. The Assembly does not necessarily have to fix Departments for a generation in the same way as it might fix overall structures of public administration for a generation. Members must be careful that they do not confuse matters.
Many Members seem to be expressing more concern about the conclusion of the review than they did about its start. There have been complaints about the delay in getting the review started, about what is or is not going to happen during the review, and questions about what will happen at the end of it. People seem to be fearful that the review will be carried out in camera, with surprises coming at the end. There should be no surprises lurking in any conclusions that emerge. The Executive want to ensure widespread public debate of the issues, which includes ongoing debate in the House and in Committees. We are encouraged by the level of interest shown by the public in the limited consultation on the terms of reference. We hope that public interest and involvement develop as the review starts to examine the substantive issues that need to be addressed. Many Members mentioned many of those issues today.
A key message to take away from the debate is that the review will be an open and transparent process. That is not just a standard of the Alliance Party. It has to be an open and transparent process, which will require the Assembly and the Executive to work in partnership to the benefit of everyone. Whatever the outcome of the review, it must have the support of the Assembly to see it through to a successful and durable implementation. That is why it is so important that the Assembly be involved at every stage.
It is also important that there is a responsible and consistent approach to the review by elected representatives and political parties. It is easy for representatives of the same party to lobby for two or three conflicting outcomes. There were examples of that in the debate, depending on which hat a Member happened to be wearing at the time. If a Member supports the rationalisation of councils, while at the same time members of his party call for the maintenance of the councils of which they are a part, clearly there are problems with credibility and consistency.
Any Member can play games with such a complex review. However, to do so — consciously or otherwise — is to undermine the capacity for consensus and change. It will add to the confusion and will contribute to a delay in achieving success in a review to which all Members say they attach great urgency and importance.
Together, the Executive and the Assembly have a responsibility to provide clear leadership and good government. In an exercise of this scale we shall be unable to please everyone — we shall not even be able to please everyone in the Chamber. There will be difficult decisions ahead, but they must be made.
The Executive cannot shirk their responsibility. People want to know that they have a Government in the Executive and the Assembly and not a Government- in-waiting. That is why we must proceed with the review in a timely and honest manner. Had we opted for the more hands-off review that some suggested, we would have been attacked for not providing leadership and for not offering clear Executive ownership of an important exercise that will affect government for some time.
The Assembly’s interests must also be balanced with the expectations of the wider community. For that reason, we are developing a process that will allow feedback from a broad range of stakeholders on issues as they emerge and develop. It must be remembered that the nature of the review means that issues will emerge and develop. It is wrong for Members to think that everything in the review has been precast in an inflexible and unresponsive way. The review must be structured so that it can absorb and reflect all the issues and tensions that will arise.
Several Members, including William McCrea and Duncan Shipley Dalton, made two distinct points. First, they asked that we move ahead quickly with the review and that the outcomes are produced and implemented speedily. Secondly, they asked us to look more fundamentally at how the functions of the 11 Departments are to be allocated. In many ways, those two points contradict each other.
Other Members argued that more matters must be brought into the review. It was also argued that several other issues, which are already under review, should be included to make a composite or omnibus review. If we include everything in the review of public administration, it will take longer to conduct.
Not for the first time, Seamus Close referred to putting things into the wheelbarrow and wheeling them in front of you. However, lo and behold, he wanted the review of rating policy, the review of office accommodation and the various other reviews to go into that wheelbarrow. He also denounced those reviews for having already been started. Those reviews are commitments in the Programme for Government and are taking place on time in keeping with the programme. At the same time, Mr Close attacked the supposed delay in the review of public administration. A little consistency would perhaps take us further and could mean that there might be less in the wheelbarrow.
I shall turn to the scope of the review and how Government Departments will be dealt with. The basis of the present system of public administration was laid down in the early 1970s. The departmental structure of the Assembly was agreed in 1998, although devolution only came into effect at the end of 1999. Devolution has existed for only two years — not even two full years, due to suspensions and other disruptions, such as having only an acting First Minister and an acting Deputy First Minister for four months last year.
The Assembly’s departmental structure was agreed without reflecting at all on the structure of public administration outside the Assembly. What we are talking about now is a review of arrangements that are 30 years old. Many Members reflected on today’s different circumstances and conditions and gave their own perceptions and experiences of those earlier structures. The departmental structure is not set in stone; it can be changed and adapted, and not just from Assembly to Assembly. Under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister can propose changes to the structure.
I was particularly intrigued to hear the valiant plea by some DUP Members for reorganisation of Departments and transfer of functions. I daresay that if the First Minister and I came forward with such proposals, those who are now demanding them would be the first to cry "Foul" and say that they were politically rigged and that we were somehow engaged in drive-by political sanctions against some Departments.
The Patten Report and the criminal justice review derived from the agreement, and both envisaged devolution of justice functions. Given that the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and the agreement specify that there cannot be more than 10 Departments, those parameters would require an adjustment to be made in any case. That can be taken in our stride. In Westminster, in Dublin and everywhere else, Government Departments can be changed and restructured relatively easily, without the consequent reduction and the need for phasing and dealing with other issues as clearly applies in the review of public administration. I see no need to weigh the review down with any task not germane to its purpose.
I take the point from Seamus Close and other Members that the review should focus on the citizen; the more we in the Chamber focus on Departments, the less sure I am that that will happen. We must make sure that we address people’s rightful interests and demands regarding service, rather than structures.
There are no predetermined outcomes. The objective must be to create the best possible system of public administration. It is not about cutting jobs. It is about the delivery of public services and the legacy we want to leave to future generations.
In the context of devolution and our newly established institutions, it is necessary to make changes to the current system to reflect the new dispensation. On the evidence of today’s debate, there is no dispute about that. We must move forward with a modern system that lives up to our expectations and meets all our requirements.
That may mean new ways of working and new ways of thinking about how services are delivered. Tommy Gallagher referred to partnership. A key theme of this Administration is partnership between the customer and the service provider, between local and regional levels of government and between the Government and the community.
In examining the ways in which services are administered, we will be keen to consider new methods of working, including the development of partnerships at local levels as well as those between different levels of government. One dimension of that is the fairly recent establishment in many localities of partnership boards or local strategic partnerships. Those relate to local government, the public sector and the community in a variety of ways. It may have been some of these that Sammy Wilson referred to in his remarks.
Francie Molloy said that some arrangements have grown up with European programmes. The review should examine whether mechanisms from those and other arrangements could provide potential opportunities for the future here. We must look not just at how delivery of public services can be improved, but also at how we can assure appropriate local accountability for those services. Local delivery is one issue, and local accountability is another.
The Chairperson of the Committee of the Centre raised the issue of the oversight of the review. We have made clear that it is a matter for the Assembly. That is why we called for a pre-consultation debate and wrote to the Committees and to you, Mr Speaker. We are happy to work with what the Assembly decides should be the form, strength and nature of its engagement with the process.
We want to have a positive relationship with the relevant Committee and we recognise that all Committees have a part to play. William McCrea also commented on the role of Committees. However, I thought that I was partaking in a different debate when he suggested that Committees were being relegated to the end of the line. Given that the Committees were consulted first, I am unsure as to how he came to that conclusion.
In fairness to the First Minister and me, we raised the issue of how the Assembly would oversee the review with the Speaker. We indicated that, because of the Assembly’s central role, we look forward to working with its Committees. That must be reflected in the way in which the review is conducted. Several Committee Chairpersons have registered the need to involve their Committees in the work of the review at every stage, and that was reflected in the comments of several Chairpersons and others who spoke from a Committee perspective.
We want to be responsive. However, if 11 Committees hold the review team to account, it may diminish the role of the Assembly. Therefore, we must find a way to allow all Committees to express their views clearly and strongly. However, we must ensure that those views are harnessed in a sensible and structured way. Sensible approaches that provide clear accountability, without the risk of confusion or undue contention among Committees, must be found.
That is why we propose a similar approach to that which the Assembly and the Committees use to handle the Budget considerations. Each Committee is to put forward its responses and views, but one Committee will take overriding responsibility for reflecting those views to the Assembly. The indications are that the Committee of the Centre believes that it should pursue that role.
Several Members emphasised that the Committee of the Centre must have a strong hand in the review. Some Members who advocated that also said that the review should be independent and criticised the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister’s having a central role in it. That is inconsistent.
Edwin Poots asked about the nature of the review. It is an overall review that must look at specific areas such as local government, the different quangos and the different sectoral footprints that are involved. However, it must do that as a coherent whole. Other reviews will dovetail with it, but we must be clear that we seek a single, coherent, initial model for public administration that is capable of looking at service delivery across the sectors.
Other reviews were mentioned. I reassure Alex Maskey, who cannot be here as he is visiting someone in hospital, and Tommy Gallagher that the review of public administration will not delay progress in other areas.
It has been suggested, here and elsewhere, that the delay of the review of public administration or the way in which the process is conducted is holding up the implementation of the structural proposals in the Hayes Report and the Burns Report. In fairness, the Executive have yet to receive, let alone agree or defer, proposals for structural reform from the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety or the Minister of Education, following the independent Hayes and Burns reviews.
Those reviews were the subject of lengthy consultation. Many critics of those reviews and their lengthy consultation periods seem to be asking us to conduct the review of public administration in a similar manner. The Executive decided that in all reviews that are consistent with the mandate in the Programme for Government it would not be the case that nothing can be agreed until everything is agreed. Reforms can progress, as illustrated by the establishment of Invest Northern Ireland. Other reviews are progressing. Some of the points that emerge from those reviews must be taken into account, and there must be cross-referral between the themes that emerge from the review of public administration and other reviews. However, there should not be gridlock.
We must take decisions in a responsible and co-ordinated fashion. It is a two-way process in which different review teams can take account of one another’s findings. Some of the reviews that the Department of Finance and Personnel has carried out were mentioned. It was implied that the senior Civil Service review, the office accommodation review and the rating policy review should all now be put on hold or incorporated into the review of public administration. To do that would be to lose sight of the fact that there are important discrete issues that must be dealt with on their own terms and merits in separate reviews. The thinking and understanding that develops as a result of those reviews will inform other aspects of the review of public administration and vice versa. However, we will not aid progress in any of those areas if we merge reviews or if other reviews were to be subsumed by the review of public administration.
I do not think that Members believe that an alternative approach would be sustainable. We must ensure that when Departments are carrying out reviews, they have regard to what emerges from the review of public administration. We cannot improve the public sector as a whole or public administration as a service if 11 different Departments are making their own decisions separately. Equally, the "big bang" approach to public sector reform, whereby everything is changed at once, is not achievable.
Equality proofing was mentioned. The duty to promote equality of opportunity will be taken into account at all stages of the review. We will consider carefully how to assess the equality impact of recommendations. We must consult before we take decisions.
Some Members drew attention to the characteristics in the terms of reference. Mr ONeill focused on the importance of TSN principles in this review and their relevance to the issue of public access to services. That issue goes beyond the structure of services by focusing on delivery. Mr Molloy and others also raised similar issues that we must consider.
Several Members mentioned the idea of appointing an independent commission to carry out the review. Some of those people are the same ones who criticised the effect of other independent reviews and viewed them as government by the long finger. I will leave Members to square their thoughts on that.
Many Members have asked who the experts will be and whom we will appoint. Some Members seem to be questioning the appointment of independent experts as advisers, while at the same time championing the idea of having an entirely independent commission to run and manage the review — and that commission will have to be appointed by somebody.
We have identified two types of experts that we would like to appoint as advisers, although we have not yet identified the individuals. There will be one group of high-level experts who will act as key mentors and monitors of the process and will help to quality assure it. Those are people who are seen to be heavy hitters in the public administration field, but we recognise that they will not be able to devote their time in a direct and hands-on way over the lifetime of this project. However, they can play an important role in mentoring and monitoring the process. The other group of experts are people with particular sectoral expertise, based on their professional experience, their academic insight or their background. We want to ensure that we can get all the necessary insights, and those insights will be made available not only to the core team that will be working full time on the review, but to others as well. That core team will comprise not only civil servants but also people drawn from a range of professions across the public sector — indeed, the team does not have to be confined to the public sector. I want to underline that point, because some people seem to be caricaturing the review as an inside job when that is not the case.
Several points were made that were not germane. Mr McCartney reprised his contribution to the debate on estimates in the hope that I would answer because he felt he did not get an answer then. I addressed most of Mr McCartney’s points when I was Minister of Finance and Personnel, and I refer him to those responses.
Some Members raised issues related to local government. Mr Gallagher asked how local government units would identify with communities, and that is an issue that must be addressed. Some Committees will also address that issue, and Dr McCrea indicated that that would be one area, but not the only area, in which the Committee for the Environment would be taking an interest.
I will not be able to cover all the issues that were raised in the time remaining. However, we will correspond with Members on those matters. I hope that we will be able to take some of those issues on board in further work on the terms of reference and in future layouts for the review. I welcome the fact that, while many people mentioned the perceived delay in the review and asked questions about how it will be conducted, there seems to be reasonably widespread support for the proposed terms of reference, although other suggestions were also put forward. Member after Member has drawn attention to specific, important principles in the document. They are in there; Members identified few principles that are not covered in the paper.
We shall carefully review the specific changes that people have been canvassing, alongside the views from Committees. I recognise that some issues about process have been raised, and I indicated in my opening remarks that we shall provide more information shortly. However, notwithstanding that some Members want it all ways — or certainly more than one way — it is clear that some want the review done quickly, but at the same time want its remit extended. They want the review to be independent, but at the same time want the Executive seen to be adopting a hands-on role while doing our own job in Government. Some Members want us to maintain independence by appointing commissions, while criticising similar structured reviews in other arenas and in other veins.
I recognise that there will be an amount of political exchange and badinage in relation to this exercise, as there is in everything else. We can take that as part of the loose change of the whole exercise. However, we must remember that the important currency of the exercise must be those important principles that are laid out in the paper and that many Members rehearsed. If we stick to the agenda that many Members emphasised when setting out what they regarded to be the key principles, we as an Assembly, and not only the Executive, will be providing a good service to the region for at least a generation to come.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly notes the proposed Terms of Reference for the Review of Public Administration.
Adjourned at 6.02 pm